Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Short-termism

Mr. John Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to make any proposals to counter short-termism in British industry.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): Like my right hon. predecessor, to whom I pay tribute, I recognise the importance of this issue. Companies' ability to invest for the long term is a function of their profitability. The profitability of British industry has returned of late to the highest level for 20 years and business investment has consequently reached record levels.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell the House that on his appointment he was able to convey to the Prime Minister the magnitude of his task in repairing the damage that has been done to British industry because of short-termism? Does he recognise that it is also a malady which appertains to his own job? Can he again assure the House of his long-term commitment to industry?

Mr. Lilley: I have a long-term commitment to industry—have no fear—although I understand that the time customarily spent in this Department is shorter rather than longer. I shall certainly do all in my power to ensure that British industry continues to be profitable and therefore remains in a position to invest for the long term, as it has increasingly done under the Government.

Mr. Batiste: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment to this important job. Will he consider whether short-termism is largely due to the fact that because of our tax system too much of British savings is channeled to institutions whose fund managers are subject to short-term pressures? Is not the solution to encourage individuals to save more directly in United Kingdom industry?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he has hit upon an important point which lies behind some of the measures that we have taken in recent years to encourage direct individual saving in industry. Companies benefit from and welcome a large mass of individual direct shareholders and we are glad that there are now 11 million direct shareholders in British industry.

Mr. Gordon Brown: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post. On countering short-termism, as the right

hon. Gentleman has moved from the Treasury, does he agree with the Chancellor on economic and monetary union that
we are all committed to this goal",
or does he agree with his predecessor, who said in his resignation letter that
economic and monetary union … would be a disaster"?
Does he agree with the Chancellor—[nterruption.] This is about the long-term future of British industry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am no great expert on economic matters, but surely the question relates to short-termism.

Mr. Brown: On the question of the long-term view for this country and for industry, does the Secretary of State agree with the Chancellor that the hard ecu is one possible route to a single currency, or does he hold to the view that a single currency without a single European Government is almost inconceivable—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very long question.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I am glad to find myself opposite him again. It should be no surprise to him that I entirely endorse the position of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and indeed the whole Government, on the issue of the hard ecu and EMU. That should be no surprise as, until a few hours ago, I had some responsibility under the Chancellor for that policy.

Airline Competition

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure greater competition amongst British airlines to prevent the development of a monopoly by any one airline; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend will continue to exercise his powers, where appropriate, under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and other competition legislation. In particular, he will continue to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission those mergers in the airline industry that appear to raise United Kingdom competition or other public interest issues.
However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has specific responsibility for airlines in the United Kingdom. His policy, which I support fully, is to encourage a sound and competitive industry with a variety of airlines while promoting healthy competition in all markets, in the interests of consumers.

Mr. Amos: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Given that competition invariably benefits the consumer through lower fares, more choice and a higher quality service, will he do his best to ensure that the smaller airlines are given every possible assistance and encouragement to resist the predatory and often unfair trading practices of British Airways? Despite British Airways' massive economies of scale, its prices are up to 40 per cent. higher than those of the smaller airlines. It also operates an unhealthy monopoly on the London to Newcastle route.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend identifies an important point. I agree that smaller airlines have an important part to play in maintaining a healthy, competitive airline


industry. I am conscious of the importance of smaller airlines and small airports to the economic development of the regions which I visit in the course of my ministerial duties.

Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that when Mr. Michael Bishop and British Midland Airways applied for licences to fly between Glasgow and London, they stated that, if they were given those licences, they would compete fairly with British Airways in terms of price and service? Now that British Midland is no longer competing with British Airways in terms of price, it is complaining when British Airways gives a better service to passengers on flights between Glasgow and London. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman inform British Midland that, instead of trying to stop the service that British Airways provides for people travelling on that route, it should compete in terms of price? Will the Government break the pricing cartel of British Midland and British Airways?

Mr. Hogg: These are essentially matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but I shall ensure that he is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's views.

Mr. Hill: Why is it almost impossible to have deregulation in the United Kingdom and Europe? America ably achieved deregulation almost overnight. Does not the international aviation industry compete with aviation industries in other countries? Rather than encouraging competition between United Kingdom airlines, we should open the markets to all, resulting in lower fares throughout Europe and the world generally.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am in favour of considerable competition, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that we must carry many other countries with us on the subject of further deregulation.

Rover Group

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to respond to the European Community's recent communication on the sale of the Rover Group.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: As yet we have not received the formal decision letter from the Commission. When we do, we will reply expeditiously. We have decided, subject to any representations by British Aerospace, to accept the Commission's decision on repayment.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he ask the new Secretary of State whether he will clear up the mess created by his two predecessors and tell the House, as he must tell the Commission in due course, the details of the secret tax incentives given to Rover and British Aerospace for the shabby Rover deal? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman ask the new Secretary of State to condemn his predecessors for their deception of the House and the Commission?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman raised two points. I wish first to say something about my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State. In this respect, I speak on behalf of all Ministers and officials who had the privilege of serving under him. We very much regret what happened. My right hon. Friend was held in the highest affection and respect by those who knew him well, and I

have a low opinion of those who now try to make personal political capital out of his misfortune. As to the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer to the question.

Mr. Hogg: On the question of taxation, our position has always been that Rover Group and British Aerospace will be treated in precisely the same way as any other taxpayer. There is nothing in the Commission decision that casts doubt on that approach. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) owes the House an apology because he spoke of hidden tax concessions and, despite very careful scrutiny by the Commission, there is no evidence whatever of that.

Sir Hal Miller: I thank my hon. amd learned Friend the Minister for his generous tribute to the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I should like to be associated with that. Will he include in any response to the European Commission the fact that Rover had accumulated an overhang of £1·4 billion under the Varley-Marshall guarantee and had a further £1 billion investment programme? Had it remained in the public sector, there would thus have been potential for almost £2·5 billion in aid, which would have stuck a great deal more in the EEC craw than the minor sums that we are discussing.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. He might also like to address his mind to two other matters. First, what was done has safeguarded about 190,000 jobs. Secondly, when Rover Group was in public ownership it gobbled up £3·5 billion which could otherwise have been more profitably used.

Mr. Leighton: Although the Minister's Department is called the Department of Trade and Industry, does he agree that Britain is not allowed to have a trade policy because it is decided in Brussels? In view of what happened to Rover Group, it seems that we are not allowed to have an independent industrial policy either. Does the Minister agree that Sir Leon Brittan is now more powerful than he was when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Do not the Minister's civil servants tell him every day, "Minister, you cannot do this, that or the other because Brussels will not allow it", and is not that what irked the previous Secretary of State and made him rather vexed?

Mr. Hogg: First, it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was not here on 28 June 1990 when he might have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, during the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Secondly, I understood that Labour was pretending to be a European party, but Labour Back Benchers are showing that they have an extreme dislike of the European Community. It would be interesting to know which represents the proper view in the Labour party.

Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that people in the west midlands are heartily sick and tired of all the accusations being levelled at Rover Group and British Aerospace? Car workers in the west midlands are anxious to get on with making the cars that are necessary for our economic improvement. In view of what the European Commission may say, will my hon. and learned Friend go ahead and tell it that negotiations between the


companies and the Inland Revenue were entirely their own affair and that the benefits, if any, which might accrue from those negotiations can be set against the enormous amount of investment by British Aerospace and Rover Group in ever more credible products for the market?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I suspect that his constituents were also interested in the express finding by the Commission that a sale price of £150 million was correct and reasonable. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has alleged from time to time that that was an undervaluation.

Mr. Gordon Brown: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman need not shake his head because I have his quotes. It is time that he apologised for being so misleading.

Mr. Henderson: Before the Minister gets too carried away, will he confirm that he expects to have to give a full, written report to the Commission about the tax concessions?

Mr. Hogg: The Commission has made it plain that Rover Group and British Aerospace should be treated like any other taxpayer. That is what we have always proposed to do.

Buy British Campaign

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received in favour of a "buy British" campaign.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): My Department has received a number of such representations. We recognise the advantages of purchasing British products when they are competitive in design, quality and price.

Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will be visiting my constituency of Basildon next Wednesday to launch the "buy British goods from Basildon" campaign? Will he join me in congratulating local businesses on their initiative? Does he agree that the success that I am sure the campaign will enjoy will make a valuable contribution to Britain's balance of payments?

Mr. Forth: I am sure that the sense of delight and honour is shared equally between Basildon and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I am sure that everyone is looking forward to the visit. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has made the important point that it is right that individual areas such as his constituency should take the initiative in ensuring that local companies buy from each other wherever that is possible and justifiable. That will stimulate the local economy and the use of British goods by the British industrial sector. All of that will assist the recovery of Britain's claim in that sector, which we all want.

Mr. James Lamond: Has the Minister recently taken the opportunity to shop in C and A, British Home Stores or Littlewoods, and has he tried to find anything British among their stocks of shirts, underwear and suits? Is he aware that it is difficult to buy British, even if one wants to

do so? With the possible exception of Marks and Spencer, almost every multiple store makes it easy for our competitors to bring foreign textiles into Britain.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I can speak only for myself, and I stand before the House in my British-made suit—

Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am glad to hear that good news.

Mr. Forth: It is for each individual to exercise consumer choice and decide whether to buy British goods. If more of us did that, all retail outlets would have to reconsider their sales policies to meet our requirements, but it must be driven by the consumer.

Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that although "buy British" is a well-intentioned campaign, it might be better to advocate "sell British" because the quality is best and the price most competitive? People should not be forced to buy something that is not the best. No doubt my hon. Friend made his judgment on his smart suit because it was the best and had the most competitive price.

Mr. Forth: It is worth recording that more than 90 per cent. of the goods and services bought by the Government are from United Kingdom sources. That shows that it is possible, both at the public level and in private purchasing, to strike a balance between value and cost and patriotism. Those ideals are quite consistent and not in contradiction.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister acknowledge that the policies that the Government have pursued have brought about the worst manufacturing trade deficit in history? Will he assure the House that the change of Secretary of State will result in new policies at the Department of Trade and Industry which will set us back on the road to success?

Mr. Forth: There is no reason why that should be so. I have every confidence that the new Secretary of State will wish to pursue the excellent policies of his predecessors, and so he should. It is well known to all hon. Members—except, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman—that the Department of Trade and Industry, under successive Secretaries of State, has created an economic and industrial climate in which British industry can fight back against an increasingly competitive world trading position and, indeed, improve Britain's trading position. It is only against the background of our taxation policies, our industrial relations policies and our concentration on improvement of management that we can do that. I am confident that the future will lead us further in that direction.

European Single Market

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the measures so far agreed for the creation of the single European market have yet to be implemented by the United Kingdom, and what is the comparable figure for other member states.

Mr. Lilley: The United Kingdom, with Denmark, has the best record of implementing single market measures. Of the 95 measures that should by now be in force, only 13 remain to be implemented in the United Kingdom. That figure is twice as good as the average for other member


states. The country with the next best record to that of the United Kingdom is the Federal Republic of Germany. I am arranging for a full list to be printed in the Official Report.

Mr. Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his promotion, and I wish him well. I thank him for those figures. Do not they show that we are true and honest leaders in the creation of a single European market? Does he agree that Labour would sell its soul and that of the nation over Europe—this time for a few deutschmarks, but usually for a lot less?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his remarks. The United Kingdom was very much the first and strongest supporter of the single European market, has been consistent in implementing its measures, and is the most effective in enforcing them. We continue to take a lead in ensuring that the single European market is carried through to a successful completion. We know that the Opposition's hearts are not in it because they do not support the underlying philosophy of the single market.

Mr. Beith: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. Does he believe that the European Commission should be extremely active in promoting adherence to the single European market in all member countries and in bringing to book any country that fails fully to co-operate, or if the Commission does so, will the Secretary of State accuse it of bullying and interference in the affairs of sovereign states?

Mr. Lilley: I believe that member countries should implement measures to which they have agreed. However, I am in favour of the minimum of government at all levels.

Mr. Wells: I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his new appointment. Does he agree that implementation in Europe ought to be followed by enforcement, and that that can be effective only if all the people of a country in which directives are implemented have been consulted as part of the approval process of their national Government and of the Council of Ministers? Does not that provide a clue to the way in which we can help other European countries more quickly to incorporate the directives into their own legislation and to implement them?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important and valuable point. It has always been a tradition in this country that laws are passed after consultation and discussion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—and we want to see the maximum consultation and discussion about European as well as domestic measures as they pass through the House.

Mr. Caborn: Does the Secretary of State agree or disagree with the view of his predecessor that economic and monetary union will be a disaster—yes or no?

Mr. Lilley: As I told the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), I entirely support the Government's policy on that issue and had a hand in formulating it. One Friday morning a little while ago, I made a speech elaborating my views in an interesting debate initiated by a Labour Member who does not share the views of the Opposition Front Bench and in which we watched the divisions in the Labour party open very wide.

Following is the information


Comparable figures for other member slates are



Number


Denmark
13


Federal Republic of Germany
15


France
21


Ireland
23


Spain
26


Netherlands
27


Luxembourg
30


Belgium
32


Greece
35


Portugal
44


Italy
55

East-West Trade

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings he has had with his counterparts in the countries of eastern Europe in the past six months to discuss east-west trade.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): During the past six months, Department of Trade and Industry Ministers have met their trade or industry counterparts from the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary and Poland, as well as other Ministers from Bulgaria and Romania. I myself have held meetings in London with Ministers from Czechoslovakia, the USSR and Hungary, and have visited East Germany, Romania and Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that the fact that the previous Secretary of State was caught in a time warp and expressed extreme chauvinist views did nothing to enable him to encourage trade with eastern Europe, particularly with the German Democratic Republic? Does the hon. Gentleman further agree that the recent increase in premiums by the ECGD has not helped? Will he reconsider those premium levels, particularly as they affect trade with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made several successful visits to countries in eastern and central Europe, accompanied by business men who were very grateful for the help that he gave in presenting their case in those countries as a source of potential business. The evidence abounds. Joint ventures are increasing, and there is a growth in trade with countries in eastern and central Europe. The time warp is with the Opposition. They are the ones who want policies that failed in east and central Europe. They want to foist back on the British people interventionism, expensive subsidies and sweeteners, at the taxpayers' expense, which would not be successful. [Interruption.] Yes, I use the word "sweeteners". That is exactly what the Labour party wants, at the expense of the British taxpayer, and it would do great damage.
The Export Credits Guarantee Department makes short-term credits available, on various terms, to all the eastern and central European markets. The implementation of the EMS will be reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Forman: I welcome the efforts that have been made by successive Department of Trade and Industry Ministers


to promote east-west trade. Can my hon. Friend give some examples of joint ventures that, so far, have been successful? That is one way, together with equity participation, in which this country could benefit more from trade with eastern and central European countries.

Mr. Redwood: Joint ventures span several industries and activities. There are 60 in Poland and 48 in Hungary, by United Kingdom companies that are known to the Department. There may be others. For example, there is a well-known joint venture in railway equipment in Hungary, which is very successful. A British pub is being established in Hungary. A range of consumer and engineering industries will, I am sure, make a great contribution to United Kingdom economic activity in those countries.

EC Industry Ministers

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which meetings of the European Community's Industry Ministers he has not attended in the past year.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have attended each of the Industry Council meetings during the past year, with the exception of the 28 May 1990 meeting, which was attended by Sir David Hannay, the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Communities.

Mr. Steinberg: This question was directed at the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I venture to ask whether the new Secretary of State will give an undertaking not to treat those vital meetings in Europe with the contempt shown by his predecessor. Does the Minister share the views of his predecessor on Europe—that Germany is trying to take over the whole of Europe?

Mr. Hogg: I can suppose only that the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I made the point that I attended all the Industry Council meetings, bar one, during the past year. For completeness of information, may I observe that I attended all five of the Research Council meetings, for which I am also responsible?

Mr. Kirkhope: In his busy schedule, will my hon. and learned Friend have time to consider one of the latest of the Labour party's policy documents, "Looking to the Future", which I understand is in its first edition? It calls for high spending and interventionist policies. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that those are the very policies that would pull our industry down and leave us looking completely naked whenever we met European Industry Ministers?

Mr. Hogg: Anybody who has subjected the Labour party's policies to analysis knows that they would result in very much higher taxation, greatly increased public expenditure and a great escalation in the rate of inflation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful to the whole House if hon. Members asked questions of the Secretary of State and his Ministers instead of asking them to agree with their views.

Electronic Equipment

Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of electronic equipment sold in the United Kingdom comes from overseas.

Mr. Forth: The latest available figures show that 71 per cent. of electronic and information technology equipment sold in the United Kingdom is imported. This figure includes all such equipment, including components. No information is available on finished electronic equipment alone.

Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. However, what steps is he taking, together with his EEC counterparts, to encourage and develop the component manufacturing industries in Britain and the rest of the EEC, given the large proportion of components of finished electronic equipment that originate from outside Britain and the EEC?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is correct in his analysis that that is a problem we all share. When I say "we" I mean all OECD countries because, with the exception of Japan, we all have a trade deficit in information technology. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the good news is that the United Kingdom has a large trade surplus with the rest of the Community countries—£900 million last year—in this category of equipment. Therefore, we are positive and optimistic, as we are entitled to be. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends persist, as they seem to, in looking on the gloomy and pessimistic side, downgrading the performance of British industry, they must answer for that. We like to recognise success when it occurs.

Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend tell the House on what grounds GEC and Siemens have recently been released from many of the undertakings that they gave less than a year ago in the context of their takeover of Plessey?

Mr. Forth: Regrettably, I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question because it is not part of my responsibility. I can assure him that we shall look carefully at his point and I shall ask my colleagues to give him an answer as quickly as possible.

Rover Group

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the net benefit to the taxpayer of the sale of Rover to British Aerospace; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The sale of Rover Group for the best available price brought considerable benefits for taxpayers. It relieved them of responsibility for a company which had swallowed up £3·5 billion in the past and which carried the contingent liability of the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances. That stood at £1·6 billion in March 1988 and was set to rise significantly over the corporate plan period. The deal also safeguarded over 190,000 jobs, mainly in the west midlands.

Mr. Nellist: What is the chance of the new Secretary of State taking a leaf out of Hercules' book and cleaning out this particular Augean stable, the smell of which has ripened substantially in the past week with the revelation


that eight secret meetings took place between his Department, British Aerospace and the Inland Revenue between March and July 1988 and that £411 million in secret tax concessions was offered as a further sweetener to British Aerospace? What hold does British Aerospace have over his Department, or does the Minister intend to deny that those discussions took place?

Mr. Hogg: This is a continuing effort on behalf of the Labour party to impose on British Aerospace substantially increased burdens. The Commission has reviewed all those matters and reached a considered view. One of the findings was that £150 million was a fair and reasonable price. It also reviewed the tax questions. The time has come for the Labour party to tell the House whether it accepts the Commission's findings. If it does, it must eat an awful lot of humble pie.

Mr. Oppenheim: If there was a hidden subsidy, surely one might expect the Opposition to approve of it, bearing in mind the fact that they are in favour of industrial subsidies and that they gave the British car industry billions of pounds. Is their sudden distaste for subsidies a genuine change of heart, showing that they have embraced the free market, or is it the usual mixture of hypocrisy and opportunism?

Mr. Hogg: Unquestionably the latter.

Mr. Gordon Brown: So that there is no misunderstanding on the matter, will the Minister confirm that he knows that the Commission is not yet satisfied about the tax arrangements governing that deal? Will he further confirm that he knows that it is demanding a written report on the arrangements that are made, and when the report is done, will he agree to place it in the Library so that everyone can see it?

Mr. Hogg: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I have made it absolutely plain to the House that it has always been our intention to ensure that British Aerospace and Rover Group are treated in the same way as any other taxpayer. The Commission is simply seeking an assurance to that effect. The hon. Gentleman has some answering and apologising to do. Why does he persist in alleging undervaluation when he knows perfectly well that the Commission found that it was a fair and reasonable price?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harry Greenway. Question 10. [Interruption.] Order.

Mr. Cryer: It is the only way we can get in.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going very slowly at the moment.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is Question Time for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Will we hear from him again?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hogg: Terrible bleats are coming from the Opposition. I fancy that they do not like being knocked about.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives from the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the performance of British manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a wide range of business matters. Manufacturing industry is stronger today than at any time in the past. Output, investment, productivity and exports were all at record levels in 1989 and have risen yet further this year.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that exports were up 55 per cent. in volume in 1989 compared with 1981? Do not those figures reflect the efficiency of British industry and the effectiveness of Government policy? Do not they also give the lie to the constant bleating of the Labour party that manufacturing industry is doing less well than it is?

Mr. Hogg: The figures given by my hon. Friend are wholly right, as are his conclusions, but the figures are even better than he suggested. As he will know, in the three months to May this year, exports of manufactures, excluding oil and erratics, were 14 per cent. higher in volume terms than in the same period last year.

Mr. Hoyle: What representations has the Minister received from the CBI about the effect of high interest rates on industry? Will he put on record the fact that although our exports may have grown, imports have grown more rapidly and that by the end of the year we shall have a record deficit in our balance of trade? Is not that a failure by the Government?

Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman would know if he studied these things, the CBI is bullish about the prospects of the British economy. It is concerned about the high levels of inflation that it enjoyed under a Labour Government, which it would certainly enjoy under a future Labour Government were there ever to be one, and it is firmly behind Government policy to use interest rates as a mechanism for reducing inflationary pressures.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the increasing number of small companies that are going into receivership, partially due to high interest rates being used as the sole weapon against inflation? Does he consider that that further damages our manufacturing base?

Mr. Hogg: A dynamic economy implies that businesses both start and end. I am happy to say that the net increase in businesses has been high. Between the end of 1981 and the end of 1988, business starts exceeded stops by 238,000 or, using the current figures based on VAT registration, 1,600 more new companies start each week than close.

Ms. Quin: Will the Minister confirm that between 1979 and 1987 the annual growth of exports was lower in Britain than in any other European country? Is he prepared to meet industrialists and to discuss further the concerns that they expressed to the Department at the recent conference on short-termism because they were worried about the future of manufacturing in this country?

Mr. Hogg: It is always a pleasure to talk to industrialists and indeed to anyone else who cares to talk to me or my right hon. Friend. I do not understand why the Labour party continues to poor-mouth industry. Why does not the hon. Lady concentrate on economic growth, which between 1981 and 1989 increased at an average of 3·2 per cent., while in a similar period in West Germany it increased by 2·2 per cent. only and in France by 2·1 per cent. only. Labour should concentrate on the main facts, I say.

Departmental Expenditure

Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department spent in 1989–90, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product; and what information he has on the comparable figure for the Japanese Ministry of International Trade.

Mr. Lilley: Expenditure by the DTI last year was one quarter per cent. of GDP whereas general expenditure by Japan's Ministry of International Trade proportionate to GDP was one third lower, even though its responsibilities are wider.

Mr. Franks: May I add my voice to those welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new office of state? Do not the figures that he has just given give the lie to the frequent claims by the Opposition and the academics so beloved of the Opposition that the Government do not do sufficient to help British industry? Will he reaffirm the Government's principle that the best way to assist British industry is to leave it to get on with its business unfettered by bureaucrats?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is highly significant that the only evidence that the Opposition can adduce to support their policies is the claim that a distant and rather inscrutable economy is run on the lines that they advocate. On closer inspection, the evidence refutes that, as does the experience of Labour Governments.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Japanese Government are clever and sophisticated in their handling of industry, and no one in his right mind could accuse the British Government of that? Does he realise that in one city in Japan there are 86 research clubs that are organised by the Ministry of International Trade in Japan, and that that cost the Ministry nothing more than the paper to call the meetings? That is an example of co-operation and leadership between Government and industry which costs nothing and which the British Government should follow.

Mr. Lilley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, unlike the Opposition Front Bench, is in favour of a low level of Government expenditure. Japan spends a lower proportion of its GDP on public expenditure than Britain and most European countries; it has a lower level of tax and fewer nationalised industries. As a result of its free enterprise economy, it has harnessed the great skills of the Japanese people very successfully. We have released the energies of the British people by employing the same free market methods.

Mr. David Shaw: Has my right hon. Friend been able to compare the Japanese Government's policies for industry

with the proposals in the Labour party's new policy document and the British Government's policies? Does not he consider that the policies of the British Government and of the Japanese Government, in promoting privatisation, competition and free enterprise, are far more successful?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our policies and those of the Japanese Government have much in common. They are flatly contrary to the socialist policies still advocated by the Opposition, although in a new language and in a new guise. I note that Opposition Members do not seek to object to the fact that their policies remain socialistic in their latest policy document.

Kingfisher/Dixon Takeover Report

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation he estimates his Department paying in the wake of the early release of the Kingfisher/Dixon takeover report.

Mr. Redwood: I shall continue to consider claims received before the end of this month for losses incurred on the morning of 23 May by those buying Dixon shares, selling Kingfisher shares or dealing in traded options in those securities. I will then be able to estimate more accurately the final cost. Payments will be on the basis of one half of the differences between the price at which the shares or options were bought or sold on the morning of 23 May, and the prices ruling when trading was resumed shortly after 1 pm. I shall take into account corresponding gains from selling Dixons shares or buying Kingfisher shares, or from hedging positions in the options market. The Government have already apologised for that unfortunate event.

Mr. Marshall: In view of the continuing enormous cost to the taxpayer as a result of the repeated incompetence of his Department, will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that the change of leadership in the DTI will result in no more blunders over City matters? What action has he taken to prevent that from happening again?

Mr. Redwood: The estimate of the maximum possible cost of the error is around £120,000, but I hope that when I see the final claims, it will be lower than that. The House must understand that the calculations are difficult and we cannot be entirely sure of the final outcome. Of course, it is a worrying sum of money and we have apologised for the mistake. I resent the general inference of the hon. Gentleman's question. A great deal of good regulation is performed by our insurance branch and by the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulatory organisations. The hon. Gentleman should remember that most of the important regulation of City investment businesses has been given by the House, through the Secretary of State, to the SIB and SROs and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his slur on them. With regard to conduct in my Department, there was an inquiry into that and the necessary steps were taken.

Post Office Counters

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce plans to privatise the Post Office counters service.

Mr. Forth: We have taken no decision to privatise Post Office Counters Ltd. The Post Office has a network of some 20,700 post offices, of which some 19,400 are already operated by self-employed agents.

Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he draw on the experience of many other countries, including, increasingly, several countries in eastern Europe, which are trying as widely as possible to break up the monopoly of the sale of Government services, Government-supplied goods and Government licences? Does he agree that the further introduction of competition in that area can only benefit the consumer of those services?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend knows that we are constantly looking for ways in which we can introduce competition in many areas, to the benefit of the consumer. I am sure that he will also recognise that our Post Office is among the best in the world, because of the level of service that it provides, because it operates at a profit and because its tariff is one of the best, certainly in western Europe. My hon. Friend will agree with me on reflection that we must ensure that we always strike the right balance in those matters so that the consumer and the taxpayer gain the maximum benefit.

Mr. Dalyell: Can it conceivably be true that the Minister has a possibility of promotion to the Scottish Office?

Mr. Forth: That question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I hope that he does not ask her.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend do something to encourage the Post Office to tell us exactly what is happening in the service? A post office in my constituency has been under threat for 18 months, initially of closure, but now apparently of being placed on an agency basis and another post office is under a cloud. We want a more effective post office system with a broader range of services, whether on an agency basis or a Crown basis. What we do not want is confusion.

Mr. Forth: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I am surprised and disappointed at what he said. I hope that he will take the opportunity, if he has not done so already, although I am sure that he has, to take up the matter vigorously with the chairman of the Post Office, who is always prepared to consider such matters. I hope equally that my hon. Friend will recognise that the Post Office is constantly striving to achieve the best level of service together with profitability and the minimum burden on the taxpayer. A lot has been achieved in that direction. If my hon. Friend studies the annual report and accounts of the Post Office, which were published this very morning, he will see a healthy picture.

Financial Institutions

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has last made of the effectiveness of self-regulation of the financial institutions.

Mr. Redwood: I am generally happy with the arrangements approved by the House in legislation put through in the past 10 years to strengthen the regulatory

structures in a variety of City areas. The House has passed the Financial Services Act 1986, the Companies Acts of 1985 and 1989, the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and the insider dealing legislation of 1981. There is a big new system led by the SIB and the SROs in the City.

Mr. McKay: Does the Minister accept that self-regulation has led to a confused regulatory structure? Will he consult the new Secretary of State and take steps to avert any future collapses such as British and Commonwealth Holdings and Dunsdale Securities by changing the former Secretary of State's disastrous policies and by introducing a fair, effective and independent regulatory body?

Mr. Redwood: The regulatory bodies are already fair and independent. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw that slur on the work of many fine regulators and regulatory bodies in the City. It is also misleading to call it a self-regulatory system. The system was set up under statute, with very clear powers to the regulator, and with a practitioner involvement. The point of having practitioner involvement is that we need people involved in regulation who know the business world, who get the right sort of rumours about what is going on, who know about the products, and who can help the professional regulators, who are independent and fair-minded and are paid to be so by the regulatory bodies.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is continuing public disquiet and bewilderment at the fact that no action yet appears to have been taken following the report of his Department's inspectors on the Harrods case? Does he recall that, when the previous Secretary of State spoke to the House on that report, he referred many aspects to the financial regulatory bodies? When will we have a decision from those bodies about issues such as the Harrods bank and the merchant bank that advised the Fayeds throughout?

Mr. Redwood: The bank is not a matter for me or for my Department. The House of Fraser matter is sub judice, as my hon. Friend knows. There is nothing that I can add to the comments that were made to the House by the previous Secretary of State. In many other respects there has been strong follow-up action when problems have arisen, and the Government's policy is to follow up whenever there is a reasonable chance of successfully doing so.

Departmental Structure

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the future structure of his Department.

Mr. Lilley: I am proud to have been given responsibility for this great Department of state. I plan to consolidate recent changes in the Department's structure, building on the fine traditions that the DTI and its precursor Departments have established over two centuries in helping markets work and promoting enterprise.

Mr. Haynes: This Minister has had an easy ride in the Treasury. He has now got a difficult job as Secretary of State for the DTI. His predecessor made a bloomer—he really did—on restructuring, when he said that the best thing to do would be to close down the Department. It is


no wonder he has gone. The Secretary of State has to sort out the problems of industry and of the deficit. If he does not sort them out, he will land in the river outside in a concrete suit.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. I know that he is a star on public service television from coast to coast in the United States. I therefore take his warnings and recommendations very seriously indeed. I shall do all in my power to avoid being immersed in concrete.

Exporters (Assistance)

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what resources have been provided to date to assist small firms to study the potential of new overseas markets under his Department's export marketing research scheme.

Mr. Redwood: Since the inception of the export marketing research scheme in 1969 some £25 million has been expended in grants. Since 9 May 1990, firms have been eligible for support only if they have fewer than 200 employees. Details of the size of firms using the scheme before then are not available.

Mr. Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the scheme will be immensely beneficial to dozens of small firms in the Stroud valleys in my constituency? Will he ensure that the scheme gets the maximum publicity?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the scheme. He does much good work with businesses in his constituency. I am delighted to hear that they are taking advantage of the scheme. Question Time is another opportunity to publicise an extremely helpful scheme.

Ravenscraig Steelworks

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will arrange to meet representatives of the Ravenscraig steelworkers to discuss the future of the plant.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: No, Sir. Representatives of the Ravenscraig work force have already met my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: Now that we have a new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, can we expect a new attitude towards Scottish steelworkers, who were treated with

absolute contempt by the previous Secretary of State, who ironically stood by and watched Bob Scholey invest £100 million in Germany rather than in Scotland? In view of British Steel's failure to justify the closure of the hot strip mill and the resultant threat to the Ravenscraig plant, will the Department of Trade and Industry intervene now and tell Scholey that Ravenscraig must be retained in its entirety, in the interests of the Scottish economy and the British steel industry?

Mr. Hogg: The Labour party is in no position to make such requests. Indeed, as far as I understand it, there is no difference in this respect between the policy of the Government and that of the Labour party. As my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pointed out on 20 June, the Labour party appears not to have the slightest intention of wanting to rescue Ravenscraig, to take the power to issue directives to British Steel or to offer it subsidies. If that is the position, there is really no difference between us. Of course, there is another possibility—that the Labour party wishes to nationalise British Steel, in which case, why does not it tell us so?

Civil Aerospace Industry

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what ways his Department is able to assist with the development of Britain's civil aerospace industry.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My Department provides financial support for pre-competitive research and demonstration projects and, funds major development programmes in the United Kingdom civil aircraft industry. It also provides non-financial support for the industry in a variety of ways, for example, by working for open markets in international trade.

Mr. Jack: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the concerns that are presently felt in west Lancashire about the cut in expenditure on military aircraft projects. He will also be aware of the efforts that my hon. Friends and I from west Lancashire are making to help to win new civil business for British Aerospace. What help can we expect from his Department in those endeavours?

Mr. Hogg: I always listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says and to what is said on this important matter by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who is in his place. They have a major contribution to make to the future of the British aircraft industry and I look forward to detailed discussions with them.

Community Care

Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Secretary Clarke.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after the statement.

Mr. Hayes: It relates to the statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: How can it be related to the statement when we have not heard it yet?

Mr. Hayes: It is, Mr. Speaker. We have a statement on community care and a debate on community care. I suspect that both are exactly the same—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I suspect that both are exactly the same. So that the maximum number of hon. Members might be called, may I suggest that supplementary questions on the statement should be short? That was my point of order.

Mr. Speaker: That is a helpful suggestion. As we have a statement and a debate, in fairness to the House, I shall allow the statement to go on for about half an hour—depending, of course, on the length of the statement. I now call upon—

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks ago you had to suspend the House because of the disruption caused by the Secretary of State for Health making a statement and taking up time on an Opposition Supply day. He is now doing exactly the same again. He is cutting into the time of a Supply day by making a statement on exactly the subject that we shall be debating. Opposition parties have no rights to fair play in this House apart from your protection, Mr. Speaker. May I ask what you can do to a Minister who persists in doing this time and time again?

Mr. Speaker: In view of what happened the other day, I have made it my business to find out whether there has been agreement that this statement should be made. I understand that there has.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's policies for improving care in the community for elderly, disabled, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people. A similar approach is being taken by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. Their plans will be announced separately in written answers today.
Our policies are aimed at improving social care services by ensuring that they are properly tailored to the needs of individual people. This requires a clear, locally determined set of priorities, and effective collaboration between public, private and voluntary agencies. Our proposals are linked to changes in the financial arrangements for people needing public support in residential care and nursing homes. Local authorities will take over a new responsibility to assess the individual needs of people and to meet the costs of residential or domiciliary care for the particular person in need.
As we have already said, the Government recognise that the local authorities will need adequate resources to enable them to discharge their new responsibilities. The Government will transfer to the local authorities the

resources they would otherwise have provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential and nursing homes. I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the totality of those policies, which have received a wide measure of support.
It has always been clear that the new policies represent a substantial new responsibility for local authorities. Before we implement the new proposals in full, the Government must be satisfied that local authorities can sensibly take on the new duties in a way that is fair both to the people who require services and to their local taxpayers.
Since I announced the Government's proposals last July it has become overwhelmingly clear that many local authorities are not managing their services and their spending so that they deliver good quality services effectively within reasonable spending limits. In many cases—[Interruption.]—as even Opposition Members must have noticed—local authorities have imposed excessive levels of community charge on their residents.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This statement has been foreshadowed in the press. The whole House is anxious to hear what the Secretary of State has to say.

Mr. Clarke: In those circumstances it is only sensible for any additional new burdens on local government in 1991–92 to be kept to an absolute minimum. Local authorities have made it clear that the changes that we propose in community care would lead to many authorities increasing their expenditure and their levels of community charge. This would place a further unacceptable burden on charge payers.
The Government have therefore decided that it would not be right to implement all the new proposals for care in the community simultaneously on 1 April next year. Instead, implementation will go ahead on a phased timetable so that local authorities have longer to come to terms with the need to discharge their duties efficiently and at a cost which their community charge payers can afford.
I intend that as far as possible, the momentum of preparation for the new policy that has already been achieved should be maintained. Therefore, in phase 1, from 1 April next year, I propose to introduce the new inspection units within local authorities, and new complaints procedures. Next year, development work will continue on the new planning arrangements, assessment and case management procedures, and the realignment of commissioning and providing responsibilities within social services departments.
In phase 2, from 1 April 1992, I intend to implement the new planning arrangements for local authorities and health authorities and to continue with the remaining development work. The new system, including the new benefit arrangements, will be fully implemented from 1 April 1993.
The cost of phase 1 of the proposals in 1991–92 has been taken into account in the figures for the local authority settlement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment expects to announce shortly. Help through special income support payments will continue to be available to people in private or voluntary residential and nursing homes until phase 3 of the revised


programme is implemented. The White Paper proposals on preservation of benefit rights for people already in homes will also be implemented from April 1993.
Three other important developments will also be implemented straight away from 1 April 1991. First, the new specific grant in support of services for the mentally ill will start from next April. I am confident that the grant will encourage closer co-operation between health and local authorities. It will ensure that in future local authorities give higher priority to services for this group. The grant next year will be paid at the rate of 70 per cent. and will support total expenditure of £30 million.
Secondly, the new specific grant for local authority funding of voluntary bodies which provide services for drugs and alcohol misusers, which the House voted to include in the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 three weeks ago, will commence in 1991. It will be paid at the same rate a s the mental illness specific grant and support expenditure of £2 million. Like the grant for mentall illness services, this will promote the development of more services for a group which has often been afforded low priority.
Thirdly, the specific grant for training of social services staff will be increased to support expenditure of £35·5 million in 1991–92. That is £7·5 million more than in the current financial year. That will enable us to extend the support at present available to those working with the elderly and children to new groups of staff working with mentally ill, mentally handicapped and physically disabled people. It will also enable us to increase our support for post-qualification training. Together, the expenditure supported by those three grants amounts to about £70 million. That has been taken into account in the 1991 settlement for local authority spending, details of which my right hon. Friend expects to announce shortly.
The new policies for care in the community have been almost universally welcomed and they will undoubtedly be put into effect. We are proceeding on a phased basis because of the problems posed by excessive levels of community charge. I hope that everyone will take advantage of the extra time to ensure that they will be even better prepared for successful implementation over the next three years.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State recognise that his statement today will be almost universally greeted with anger for its neglect of the most vulnerable people in our community and its contempt for the broken promises it leaves behind? There will also be contempt for the cowardice with which he attempts to palm off the blame on to local authorities.
Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that nobody who works with elderly or handicapped people will be fooled by his efforts to scapegoat the very local authorities that have been working flat out to implement his plans? Does he not know that the local authority associations have furnished his Department with reams of detailed papers on how much it would cost to set up the assessment systems that he wants, to plug the shortfall on DSS payments that he has left behind and to improve the help in the community for which he has asked?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that none of his officials has ever challenged one of those figures? Which of those estimates is wrong and which one, in his judgment, is not reasonable? If he cannot get the resources from the

Treasury, why does he not just put into care in the community the hundreds of millions of pounds he is pouring into his other plans to commercialise the NHS?
What will happen to the old people trapped in homes that charge more than the DSS will pay? Has the Secretary of State forgotten that the remedy proposed by his Government was for the DSS to pay the price of contracts placed by local authorities? Now, no contracts will be placed by local authorities until April 1993. How many elderly people will be put out on the streets by home owners who have given up waiting for the Government to honour their commitments? To those elderly people it will not be the local authorities that are unacceptable—it will be the Government.
Does not the Secretary of State appreciate the irony of his making this statement on the very day that the Prime Minister is billed to make a major statement on the family? How will he explain to more than 1 million carers of elderly parents or handicapped children that, for another two years, the DSS will pay to put granny into a home, but will not pay to provide for help in the carers' homes? Does he not realise the danger that those carers will regard the chatter about the party of the family as so much cant? What instructions will the Secretary of State for Health give hospital managers about how to respond to his own delay on the care in the community proposals? Now that he has put them off for two years, will he put off for two years the flood of closures of geriatric wards around the country?
The House has today heard a shameful statement which breaks a commitment that the Secretary of State has repeatedly made to the House. In a more honourable period in the history of the House, the statement would have ended with his resignation. Will he accept that we are grateful to him for his statement for one reason: he has removed all doubt as to the priority the Government attach to elderly and disabled people—they come at the bottom of the Treasury's spending commitments. I promise the Secretary of State that we shall ensure that that message is understood by all elderly or disabled people who need care in the community, and by everyone who cares for them.

Mr. Clarke: Every time this subject is raised in the House, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) rises to his feet and puts forward with great vigour some opinion or other. I say "some opinion or other" because he has spun like a top on the whole subject ever since we produced the White Paper. He has attacked the policy; he has supported the policy; he has said that we are going too fast; he has said that we are going too slow. When we produced the White Paper he attacked it as "Thatcherism's last hurrah"; today he defends it and criticises me because I am phasing in the introduction of our policy for improving services to the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. He supports the policy vigorously, telling me to go faster. That is because the Labour party has no policy whatever to improve services to these disadvantaged groups.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman tosses out words about the expenditure figures that might be involved. Last week, he was reported as saying that local authorities will require £1,500 million more next year for personal social services policies—a 40 per cent. increase. He gave no explanation of where that money was going to come from. I do not believe for a moment that he had the authority of his


shadow Treasury colleagues to put that view forward. What annoyed me and would annoy other people was his total indifference to charge payers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. The hon. Gentleman is wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question about figures.
The hon. Gentleman was wrong when he gave the reasons for the postponement. The reason for postponement is to protect the charge payer against the costs of proceeding with the policy so quickly when it will be implemented by people who are as irresponsible about public spending as the hon. Gentleman.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the position of people in homes. The present system will continue for the next two years. The Government are already spending more than £1 billion, through income support, to support people living in residential homes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has uplifted the contribution from income support to such homes, and he is reviewing the system again, with the assistance of a Price Waterhouse inquiry into costs.
The Government have put unprecedented sums of money into the care of elderly, mentally ill, mentally handicapped and disabled people in private homes, and in public and private sector community care. We intend to continue to do so. My statement today is a common-sense way to proceed with that policy in the light of irresponsible behaviour by largely socialist local authorities, up and down the country, who cannot keep their polices within reasonable costs.

Sir David Price: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept from the many Conservative Members with some experience of care in the community that his announcement today that the Government now accept that the new enhanced care in the community policy requires phasing means that they are at last facing reality? Will he accept that the need out there is vast, and that neither side of the House—

Mr. William O'Brien: When did the Tories realise?

Sir David Price: Many years ago, and I have practised it for the past 26 years. Neither side of the House has the funds or the authority to commit the necessary funds to the problem—we have been raising expectations unrealistically.
What will be the new formula for care in the community within the total grant support formula for local authorities to make it possible to make progress? Making progress is the most that any of us can realistically expect to do.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Social Services Select Committee which only yesterday commended a more phased approach to the policy, and said that it had always had doubts about our proceeding at the pace originally proposed.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the enormous extent of demand which can be met by improved care in the community policies. We have to ensure that the resources and the arrangements for management are put in place properly to meet priority needs, within the ability of the

charge payer and the taxpayer to afford them. We have been giving those resources. Local authority personal social services spending is up 47 per cent. in real terms during the lifetime of this Government. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our record. We have to ensure that our new improved policies are put in place in a sensible and paced way.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that those private and voluntary bodies that are lethargic or have never taken the Government's programme seriously have nothing to fear from his statement, but those bodies that are anxious to provide community care as the Government think they should, that have shown entrepreneurial skills and already have projects up and running, because the Government gave a commitment on when they could compete for contracts, are left in a no man's land? I give an example: the Vincent Harkness day care centre in Birkenhead is paying £100,000 a year out of its funds because it believed the Government's word. Will an announcement be made about extra funds so that those bodies—private and voluntary—that believed the Government and have projects up and running will not be left stranded and, in the end, bankrupted?

Mr. Clarke: I do not know the voluntary body to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but voluntary bodies that are opening day centres for various groups of clients usually look to income support for most of their income. Most accept that income support cannot meet the entire cost, and they expect to top up the amount with either their charitable funds or funds from the local authority.
The income support arrangements will continue. Those voluntary bodies that rely on income support will get it for two years until the new system is introduced. A body that at the moment has a day care centre up and running without income support must be relying on local authority grant, and a local authority that makes that provision out of aggregate Exchequer grant will continue to do so. No money is flowing to any voluntary body today under the new community care proposals. I have announced a phased timetable which will enable that money to flow in due course when the local authorities can manage the policy sensibly.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to community care and the phased introduction, which is sensible and timely. I particularly welcome his funding for the mentally ill and his specific assurance that this will bring the care of the mentally ill into higher profile in the public eye and among those who serve them, Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that this will give the lie to those who stated that the introduction of the community charge would ensure that services to the mentally ill would dwindle and vanish? He has given that assurance and ensured that the mentally ill will be properly cared for, in a way that will certainly never happen under a Labour Government.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There has been speculation in advance of today's statement to the effect that community care for mentally ill people was threatened by the postponement. That is not the case. We recognise the urgent need to develop the community side of services for mentally ill people and to help local


authorities to give it much higher priority in their plans. We are going ahead with the new specific grant. The expenditure that it supports—£30 million in the first year—is almost double local authority spending on residential personal social services for the mentally ill which, according to the last available figure, was £32 million.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the timing of this afternoon's announcement has more to do with the timing of the next election than anything else? Does he accept that the misery which is being imposed for another two or three years on the millions of people who require care must be added to the list of casualties that are a direct result of the introduction of the community charge—

Mr. Bob Cryer: Poll tax.

Mr. Kirkwood: —or poll tax? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that community care is already in operation in many constituencies? Is he aware also that, if he does not provide the money over the next two years, it will have to be found by reducing existing services?

Mr. Clarke: The policy was proceeding with a general welcome—once the Opposition decided that they had nothing to put in its place and were going to support it —until we reached the problem with the community charge. The hon Gentleman is certainly not the last to say that we have a problem with the overall level of the community charge. It is producing unacceptable burdens on some taxpayers in those local authorities where the level is excessive.
Any hon. Member who proposes seriously to address the worries of his or her constituents about the community charge should look to next year when we are implementing the Children Act 1989 and the Food Safety Act 1990, which are an important part of my Department's responsibilities, and the national curriculum, which is a new responsibility for local authorities. There is nothing wrong with the charge, but there is a great deal wrong with the level of charge that has been imposed in many places. It is common sense not to add to that list of responsibilities next year and to phase in policies such as this one, with enormous implications, in order to ensure that they are introduced as local authorities become better able to deliver their duties while paying proper regard to the ability of their electors to pay for them.

Mr. Roger Sims: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that there is bound to be a sense of disillusionment among directors of social services at his announcement, which will also demoralise social workers who have been busy preparing to implement his proposals in April in acordance with the assurances that he and the Government have given until recently. Were the directors of social services and the local authority associations consulted about the implications of the delay in implementing the proposals? If so, what was their reaction? Will my right hon. and learned Friend think again about the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), that some community care schemes have been put forward and are on the point of being put into operation in anticipation of local authority funding from next April? Will they be funded from additional resources, or is there a danger of their withering on the vine?

Mr. Clarke: I expect that those who have been working hard in health authorities and local authorities to prepare the new plans will be disappointed. When my hon. Friend gets a chance to study the phasing that I have announced, I hope that he will see that we have done our best to ensure that momentum is maintained and that rapid progress is made on the complaints and inspection procedure next year. If community care plans are ready now, there is no reason why they cannot be implemented without a statutory duty. Undoubtedly, the pace will tend to slow and we shall have to ensure that momentum is maintained.
Of course I am aware of the views of local authorities. Most of the social services authorities felt that they were ready to go ahead and wanted to do so. The Association of District Councils was the only local authority association that thought that we should postpone. The phasing that we have announced will revive some of the people who are disappointed. It follows closely the phasing suggested in the report published yesterday by the Select Committee on Social Services.
As I told the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the statement will not lead to any reduction in funding for voluntary bodies from any source that is providing it at the moment. We are postponing the transfer from my right hon. Friend's budget to local authorities, and therefore postponing the introduction of the full new policy until 1993. Any increase in expenditure by local authorities next year will follow the pattern set out in the statement that my right hon. Friend will soon make about the local authority spending settlement and the overall level of the average Exchequer grant. Before this change of policy, there was a rapid increase in expenditure on personal social services and a rapid expansion of services. There is no reason why that cannot continue within the resources available, subject to what my right hon. Friend announces tomorrow.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Secretary of State seen the well-argued statement issued today by the Association of Directors of Social Services, making it quite clear that local authorities are both ready and able fully to proceed next April? Is he aware that, by April 1993, six years will have elapsed since Sir Roy Griffiths was commissioned to report on community care? Is not that disgraceful? Is not it also disgraceful that crucial sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, more especially sections 1, 2, and 3, still await implementation four years after they became law?

Mr. Clarke: The directors of social services continue to assure us that from a management point of view they are ready to deliver the new services. The right hon. Gentleman's own party has calmly said that they need £1·5 billion to do so. That is a 40 per cent. increase in their personal social services budgets, a large part of which, I assume, is expected to come from the community charge payer. For the reasons that I have given, that is not acceptable. Local authority spending has increased by 25 per cent. in the last two years alone. We can phase the introduction of community care and continue the rapid progress that has been made in expanding the services provided by local authorities, which have a good record.

Dame Jill Knight: Is not there a marked difference between the way that my right hon. and learned Friend is wrestling with the severe


difficulties of finding the necessary cash, and the Opposition's attitude, which appears to be that there is simply no limit to the cash available?
In his statement, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that there would be £7·5 million additional funding for training of social workers dealing with, among others, the elderly. Is he aware that many Conservative Members remain anxious about the plight of the elderly in nursing homes? Can he assure us that our concern will be borne in mind because, if the elderly are thrown out of their nursing homes, will they not have to go into geriatric beds in national health service hospitals?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her opening remarks. The Opposition's attitude is quite clear—they support our policies in full and they cannot understand why we do not go ahead and implement them and put up the community charge to pay for them. That is a summation of their policy.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern for those in residential care and our constant problem in getting the level of income support right. That is being wrestled with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. He is obtaining further information about the cost of providing a good level of care in residential homes. He has heard my hon. Friend's remarks and he will have to make a judgment about the uprating next year.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's recognition of some of the aspects of the Select Committee's report. Will he undertake to follow the rest of its advice? When will there be an announcement about Northern Ireland? I welcome the presence of a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office. Is not Northern Ireland part of the community? As there is no community charge in Northern Ireland, will the community care policy be implemented, or is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that it will be tailor-made for individuals simply another short cut—as Belfast people say, "see more suits"?

Mr. Clarke: I shall study the remainder of the Select Committee's report with care and respond in due course. I thought that I should draw attention to the fact that, on this rare occasion, I had rather more support than I expected in the Select Committee's report. I have discussed the position of Northern Ireland with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I know that he intends to make a statement. I think that he will follow a similar process to mine.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that carers are saving the nation more than £20 billion a year and that a large number of them are quite literally killing themselves by their caring efforts? Will he give special consideration to additional resources for respite arrangements, because if we do not give a great many of those people help, and quite quickly, many of them will collapse and that will cost the state even more?

Mr. Clarke: There is already a flow of additional resources into personal social services. I have already said that, overall, local government spending has risen by 25 per cent. during the past two years. In fact, spending on personal social services tends to rise twice as fast as

spending on the generality of local authority services. There is no reason why local authorities should suddenly reverse that trend.
I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about the position of carers. Beyond anything provided by the statutory bodies, it is the families and the friends who carry the main burden of coping with the problems of the elderly and the disabled. Since we took office, the number of home helps has risen by 25 per cent., the number of adult training places for the mentally handicapped has risen by 25 per cent., and there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of day centre places for the mentally ill. We intend to maintain that progress, phasing in an even better policy of assessing people for care and delivering it.

Mr. John Home Robertson: What would the Secretary of State say to patients and their families at the East Fortune geriatric hospital in my constituency, which is threatened with closure in anticipation of further care in the community? If the hospital closure goes ahead, what will happen to those patients who have to wait for two years before suitable accommodation is made available for them in the community?

Mr. Clarke: We are steadily moving away from long-term, long-stay provision in hospital wards. This country probably has finer services for elderly people than can be found anywhere in the world. Modern rehabilitation services have enabled us greatly to reduce the number of long-stay geriatric wards. Those patients are discharged either into residential care or into community care, and alternatives are provided. My ministerial colleagues and I do not approve closures in England unless we are satisfied that adequate and better services are available in place for the patients.
The same policy is followed by my right hon. and hon. Friends in Scotland. I am told by the Minister responsible for health in Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) that no decision has yet been reached on the East Fortune hospital, and I am sure that he will approach a decision on the same basis as I would with my hon. Friends.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who has such a deep knowledge of these matters, that it is far better to phase in proposals than to rush helter-skelter before the arrangements are properly ready. We should wait until they can be implemented without an intolerable burden on charge payers.
I welcome the specific grant for support services for the mentally ill. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the elderly people in residential homes will not face a hiatus because of the change in the arrangements that he has made to preserve their funding? That is absolutely crucial.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful that my hon. Friend accepts that it is sensible to proceed at the pace I propose. I am glad that she welcomes the increased provision for mentally ill people. The policy is totally new, because that specific grant—which will support almost double the expenditure that local authorities had previously—will be released to the local authorities by the health authorities, when the two have got together, to produce proper plans for community care of patients who either have been in hospital or might otherwise be in hospital. That is as


important to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who has large mental hospitals near her constituency, as it is to many others.
I agree that it is important to provide residential care provision for people in homes. It has filled an enormous gap in recent years. We have problems in getting the level of income support right. The transition from the present arrangements to the new arrangements will take place in 1993. We have to ensure that nobody slips in between when that changeover is made.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Is the Secretary of State not aware that, if the implementation of community care will put a large burden on poll tax payers, that is entirely because his Government intend to refuse adequate central funding? Is he not also aware that, whether implementation is in 1991, 1992 or 1993, it will require large resources? Is he suggesting that delay will enable local authorities to make that provision using buttons instead of the resources that his Department should supply?

Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady does not understand the position of her own party—or perhaps I do not. Labour is not urging on the Government—as the hon. Lady appears to do—that central Government should pay all those costs. The Leader of the Opposition's answer is, "Bung up the community charge—that is how it should be paid for." I do not believe that that is acceptable.
If the hon. Lady believes that Labour's record might be better than ours on central Government financing, I can only say that it certainly was not when Labour was in power. The Government have vastly increased provisions for personal social services, which went up by only about 2·5 per cent. a year in real terms when Labour was in power. That is far below the level of growth in services since a Conservative Government came to power.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that anyone who attacks his extremely sensible decision to phase in these proposals is paying warm tribute to the wisdom of his policies? Unless the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) gives full support to the Government in the coming debate, he will be setting a level of inconsistency that is breathtaking, even by the standards of the Labour party.

Mr. Clarke: Like my hon. Friend, I wait with bated breath. The line today appears to be that the Government have a magnificent policy, the best policy ever devised for elderly, disabled, mentally handicapped and mentally ill people. The hon. Gentleman cannot understand why we do not introduce it tomorrow and just let the community charge wind up, wherever it might be. Our sensible, phased approach will commend itself both to those who look after disadvantaged people in society and to those who face the community charge bill, which has to be in line with increased local government expenditure.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Government's policies represent a complete sell-out in terms of community care. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made excuses about the poll tax and phasing, but they do not apply to Scotland. Given that 1·2 million Scots are in need of community care, and that 250,000 of them have severe care needs, why is the Secretary of State for Scotland not here to make a statement? Why is there this

bitty, piecemeal approach to community care? The whole House wants community care, but the Government have clearly failed to deliver it.

Mr. Clarke: The Opposition have chosen this subject for debate today, a Supply day. I brought forward the statement from tomorrow because it seemed to be pointless to have a community care debate if nobody knew what we were doing and reliance had to be placed on newspaper reports. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales had followed me, we should not have had much of a Supply day.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is announcing the details of his proposals today. I understand that in the near future he will be making a statement on the Floor of the House about the community charge. All related matters can be examined then.
The community charge is not an excuse. If we had followed what is urged upon us by the hon. Member for Livingston, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would have found his community charge payers allying themselves with the Labour party for having pressed the Government to drive it up so high.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is an important statement. Because of its importance, I have allowed questions upon it to continue for rather longer than I originally stated. However, there is to be a debate on care in the community. There is also a ten-minute rule motion. I propose to call three hon. Members from each side, then we shall move on to the ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his measured approach is greatly to be welcomed? Some would wish that the same had applied to the health proposals. Is my right hon. and learned Friend also aware that his decision to ring-fence the mentally ill budget is equally to be welcomed? He referred to the need for momentum in preparing for community care and for individual needs to be taken into consideration. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me that, in my part of the country, individual assessment has not been carried out and that there is a great need for it, to ensure that we know which individuals should come under community care and which should come under health care? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that that work is done in good time for implementation in 1993?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He and I agree about the timing of the change, although I realise that he has reservations about other aspects. I strongly agree with him that there is a lot of work to be done in the next two years. Local authorities need to improve their collaboration with the health authorities. There is nothing to stop either of them producing community care plans showing how they intend to co-operate when they are ready.
We need to have a good training programme to ensure that people are able to handle personal assessment which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, needs to be done properly by those who are responsible for it. Therefore I join him in believing that the next two years could be used to great


advantage to maintain momentum and to ensure that when the policy is introduced in 1993 it works better than it might otherwise have done.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does not the Secretary of State realise that some constituencies face very great problems, particularly the St. Helens area which is part of the St. Helens district health authority? Rainhill hospital in that area has been proposed for closure and it has been offered for sale to the public at large before the patients have even left it. The best part of 1,200 people will have to be decanted into the community.
In view of the phasing in of the community care proposals, could not special arrangements be made for areas such as St. Helens, so that where a problem already exists, the needs of those who have already been decanted and of those who would have been taken into long-stay hospitals lead to special facilities and grants being provided, so that they can be cared for during the next two years? It is not fair to sell off such institutions and leave nothing in their place. I remind the Secretary of State that we have the lowest number of geriatric beds per head of population anywhere on Merseyside, and we need help now.

Mr. Clarke: It can be a good, caring policy to sell off a hospital ahead of its final closure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] If the Opposition had ever got to power recently, they would have been faced with the problem that old and decrepit Victorian hospitals cannot be closed and alternative facilities provided if we have to wait for the sale price. If there is a sale date some years ahead, one can advance some of the money, provide better care for the patients and residents and then proceed with the closure and recover the money already expended. That is a proper way of going on.
We have introduced a generous new capital loans scheme to meet the same problem. Areas with particular problems can borrow money out of our capital allocations which they use to provide better facilities to replace the old rundown ones. They can repay the loan when they are able to sell the redundant buildings.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in deploring the irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in talking about grannies on the street and old people being thrown out of their homes? Does he agree that, given that there is a review of costs in progress and that income support will be reviewed regularly between now and 1993, the only thing likely to result in grannies being ejected from their homes is the scaremongering and deliberate spread of misinformation that we have heard from the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Livingston is never knowingly undersold. He works up such fiery rhetoric on every occasion. Sometimes he flatly contradicts the position he has taken on previous occasions and, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, he sometimes causes alarm and damage.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On 25 June, when the Secretary of State obviously knew what the levels of poll tax would be in England and Wales, he wrote to Mencap to say that he had not been convinced by the

arguments for delay and was convinced that he and his colleagues would be arguing for resources for community care. What has happened since that time to make him change his mind?

Mr. Clarke: I am always in listening mode when developing policy. I pay most attention to those who are complaining about the excessive levels of community charge they are facing. It is also the case that organisations such as Mencap share the views of many others that it would be advantageous to phase in the policy. Once the dust has settled—I do not think that the hon. Member for Livingston will raise much of it—he will find that most people working in this area will accept that the policy can be improved by phasing it in.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the two-year delay will place an additional burden on income support? Can he give an assurance to those who live in Sussex and other parts of the south of England where income support is insufficient already, that it will be increased sufficiently to make up the difference?

Mr. Clarke: The new grants I have announced will be an increased burden for the general taxpayer. My statement included announcements of increased expenditure to be taken account of in local authority settlements. I accept that this is likely to lead to an increase in income support, but we cannot anticipate exactly how much. The care element of that income support will be transferred to local authorities at whatever level it has reached in April 1993.
I agree with my hon. Friend that an important issue to be addressed over the next two years, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, is reviewing the levels of income support to ensure that they reflect changes in cost, about which more information is being sought. This is always a difficult matter. No Government have ever claimed that income support can always meet the full charges, let alone the full cost, of every residential care home.

Mr. David Young: Apart from lacking resources, my local authority was ready in every way for the implementation of the policy and it had not anticipated the prevarication of the Secretary of State. We are concerned not about apportioning blame but about the fact that many old people may find their lives shortened because of the hiatus that has been created. I trust that no hon. Member on either side of the House is in favour of that sort of involuntary euthanasia. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman pay attention to the patients he has now put in an impossible position? They are often the most disadvantaged in the community.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's reference to involuntary euthanasia, or however he described it, is breathtaking. I have announced increased provision for care in the community and three new specific grants totalling £70 million; I have not announced a reduction in service or provision. I accept that the hon. Gentleman's local authority may have been in a position to go ahead. I have no idea what view it would have taken on how much it would spend or how much its community charge payers would be asked to meet. Many people in Bolton will appreciate the need to get the new system under control and to get the community charge properly managed before


we go ahead with the full policy. To suggest that I have announced something that will kill old people is to take political rhetoric to absurd extremes.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received notice of one point of order from a Front-Bench spokesman, but before taking it, may I repeat that I am not responsible for the timing of statements, although I understand that there was an agreement on this one? Today is an Opposition day, and some hon. Members who have been rising will be called in that debate; others will be remembered.

Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the circumstances, I intend to be extremely brief.
The Secretary of State for Health has made a statement dealing with the position in England and Wales. I presume that Scotland again is being treated by the Secretary of State for Scotland as something of an afterthought to be fobbed off with a written answer.
I understand that in Scotland, too, financial confusion about the poll tax is the root cause of the Government's retreat. The position in Scotland, whatever it may be elsewhere, is that local authorities are willing and ready to go and organised and determined. I know from personal contact today that the announcement that has been made will be a bitter disappointment. Scots will want to know why the most vulnerable in our society will, in effect, be victims of the Government's own poll tax blunders.
There is no obvious opportunity, despite what the Secretary of State for Health has said, to question the Secretary of State for Scotland between now and when the House rises. A statement will be made by the Scottish Office on overall head totals of the revenue support grant settlement, but that will not enable us to consider in detail the policy behind community care. I simply want, through you, Mr. Speaker, to express my disappointment and dismay that a major matter of policy is being passed without an opportunity for scrutiny on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Wales has proffered not an oral statement to the House but a wretched written answer on the important matter of care in the community.
I seek your guidance, Sir, because, besides not making a statement to the House, the Secretary of State for Wales has attacked the local authorities of Wales, and he has used an unjust and disgraceful means to do so.
Wales has a higher proportion of disabled people than other areas of Britain because so many of our people worked in our coal mines, foundries and steelworks. Disabled and elderly people and carers have been treated shabbily. I ask how you, Sir, may bring the Secretary of State for Wales to the House to make an important statement on the most vulnerable members of our community.

Mr. William O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take it, but this is Opposition time.

Mr. O'Brien: I am aware of that, but not one hon. Member from the Yorkshire region was called. There are many chronically sick and disabled people in Yorkshire. We should have been given an opportunity to make our point.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that there are many disappointed hon. Members, and I regret that the hon. Gentleman is one of them. As I have already said, I am not responsible for the timing of statements or of the Opposition day. I must do my best to ensure a fair balance. I have already said that some hon. Members who have not been called will be called in the coming debate. It would have been unfair to call them on the statement as well.
The matter raised by the Front-Bench spokesmen is not a matter for me. I have allowed complaints to be made and they have been heard by the Government. There will be other opportunities before we rise, such as the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill and the summer Adjournment motion.

Abolition of Fox-Hunting

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the hunting of foxes with hounds illegal.
Given the depth of feeling on the subject, I am quite surprised that this appears to be the first time such a Bill has been attempted since the last war.
In my lapel is a badge depicting a badger. I wear it to remind me of the Protection of Badger Setts Bill which was introduced through the ten-minute Bill procedure. That Bill aimed to protect badgers' homes against the activities of those subhuman perverts who gain pleasure from baiting badgers with dogs. Because of a stroke of fortune and some deft footwork on my part, the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading and was debated fully in Committee. There were no representatives of the badger baiters on the Standing Committee, but there were Members of Parliament who represented the interests of fox hunters. Because of the fragile nature of the procedure that I am trying again to adopt today, I was forced to make a number of significant concessions. I shall not rehearse the arguments and the concessions, but they turned out to be a vain attempt on my part and on the part of the supporters of the Bill to buy off the opposition of the fox hunters.
We failed to satisfy the hunters because they demanded an absolute right to interfere with a badger sett in pursuit of their so-called sport. The end result was that the fox hunters killed the badger setts Bill and in doing so probably condemned many more badgers to death at the hands of those sick characters who bait badgers.
In Committee I was accused of using the badger setts Bill as part of a strategy to deal with fox hunting. I denied that then, and I deny it here in the House this afternoon. I said in Committee that I would approach fox hunting head on at an appropriate time and I am trying to do that. That is why I am seeking leave to introduce a Bill to make the hunting of foxes with hounds illegal.
Fox hunting was memorably described by Oscar Wilde as,
the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable.".
Perhaps the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who is a prominent hunter, is the exception that proves the rule. He is certainly not unspeakable and, although a fox might be uneatable, the carcass of the hon. Member for Crawley would provide many a jolly banquet.
The great majority of people in Britain oppose fox hunting. It is not an issue of town versus country as it is often caricatured by supporters of fox hunting. In a 1987 Gallup poll based on a large sample, 68 per cent. of people canvassed said that they would support laws forbidding fox hunting. I might add that 73 per cent. of people supported the banning of stag hunting, which was the subject of another ten-minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), and, in the same poll, 72 per cent. supported an end to hare coursing. None of those barbaric and cruel activities have been banned, precisely because of the behind-the-scenes pull of the hunting lobby. It is significant in the House, but it is behind the scenes. I believe that on a free vote, the House would be able to end all such activities with a massive majority.
I remind the House that the Labour party promised to do just that in our 1987 election manifesto. Unfortunately, we lost the election; we shall win the next one. This afternoon, I am not authorised to commit the Labour party to such a promise. I only wish that I were, but, knowing the opinions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the feelings in the Labour party, I feel quite certain that the same undertaking to end all forms of organised hunting with hounds will be repeated by the Labour party at the next general election. If only small furry creatures had the vote, Labour would never be out of office.
I confess that I do not understand the psychology of those who derive pleasure from hunting small terrified creatures to death. The hon. Member for Crawley, to whom I referred earlier, is an affable sort of fellow. I can not understand why affable fellows like him can do that sort of thing. There is a great gap in understanding.

Mr. Dave Nellist: He is a fool.

Mr. Banks: I would not describe the hon. Member for Crawley in such a disgraceful fashion. However, there is a gap between us which I cannot bridge.
The great Samuel Johnson wrote:
It is very strange, and very melancholy, that the paucity of human pleasures should persuade us ever to call hunting one of them.
People who go fox hunting actually say that they enjoy it.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Mr. Johnson could never have got on a horse.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) says that hunters enjoy riding horses. I can understand that. I enjoy that pleasure myself from time to time when I go donkey riding on the sands at Blackpool at party conference time. However, for the life of me I cannot understand how hunting small furry creatures adds to the pleasure of riding through the countryside on the back of a magnificent horse.
For hon. Members who do not know the details, fox hunting starts in November with hunts usually twice a week. Hunters tell us, and I hear this so often, that they are quite glad when the fox gets away. If that is the case, they still do a great deal to ensure that it does not get away. All the escape routes around the earth are blocked and that includes badger setts which brings us back to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech.
The hounds flush out a fox and the entire hideous circus which accompanies the fox hunt sets off in pursuit. The fox is not a natural prey species and it has therefore not evolved physically for prolonged pursuit. It naturally soon becomes exhausted. One small terrified animal is pursued by a pack of hounds plus a bunch of red-coated wallies on horseback and a column of ghouls in motor vehicles. That hardly seems like an even match to me. After an hour of so, not surprisingly the fox is exhausted and is either savaged to death by the hounds or, if it is very unlucky, upon finding an unblocked subterranean refuge, it falls victim to the terrier and spade brigade which follows every hunt.
Because fox hunters face a mounting barrage of opposition in the House and elsewhere, they know that they have no moral standing. There is a moral bankruptcy to their arguments. Therefore they are resorting to spurious arguments and cite conservation as a defence for their so-called sport. For example, we hear the accusation


made about foxes that they kill livestock and are pests. Many supporters of fox hunting make that claim. The fox is a carnivorous predator and a scavenger. That is precisely how nature made it. However, the great majority of foxes live largely on beetles, frogs, rabbits, wild birds and carrion and they are the biggest destroyers of rats and mice.
Although foxes do not constitute a pest, if they were pests surely far more efficient and humane methods would be available to trap or shoot them if that were necessary. Of the estimated 300,000 foxes killed each year, fox hunting accounts for about 7,500 adult foxes and cub hunting for a further 8,500. That is hardly a major contribution to fox control even if such controls were needed.
All the attempts at rationalisation by the fox hunters will not hide the unpleasant fact that they are indulging in a primitive blood lust. That is what fox hunting is all about. It also causes much damage to the countryside and hunts are often resented by rural residents. So much for the town versus country argument.
William Cowper described fox hunting as:
Detested sport,
That owes its pleasure to another's pain.
I believe that the days are now surely numbered for that detested sport. I seek the leave of the House to introduce my Bill in the certain knowledge that substantive legislation is not now far off. It is the turn of the fox hunters to be hunted and I suggest that they will not enjoy the experience.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Steve Norris, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. James Lamond.

ABOLITION OF FOX-HUNTING

Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to make the hunting of foxes with hounds illegal; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has introduced has received a unanimous First Reading and that not a single voice was raised in opposition to it, may we suspend the normal procedures and practice of the House and immediately proceed to Second Reading, Third Reading, and all stages to ensure that it is passed this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: As far as I know, the gill-has not even been printed yet. The hon. Gentleman has had leave to bring it in.

Opposition Day

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Community Care

[Relevant reports of the Social Services Committee: second report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Future funding of Private and Voluntary Residential Care (House of Commons Paper No. 257); third report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Funding for local authorities (House of Commons Paper No. 277); fifth report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Carers (House of Commons Paper No.410); sixth report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Choice for Service Users (House of Commons Paper No. 444); eighth report, Session 1989–90, Community Care: Planning and Co-operation (House of Commons Paper 580-I) and the Government's reply to the second report of Session 1989–90 (Cm. 1100).]

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. In view of the late start, I appeal not only to Back-Bench Members, whom I hope will limit their contributions to 10 minutes, although I have no authority to impose that rule, but also to Front-Bench Members to have some consideration for those who are waiting to speak.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House recalls the repeated assurances of the Secretary of State for Health that provisions to strengthen the local authority role in community care would take effect in April 1991 and that adequate resources would be transferred through the revenue support grant to support the new responsibilities of local authorities; records its concern at the statement last week by the Leader of the House that implementation now depends on the availability of resources; is aware of the desperate need of growing numbers of elderly and disabled people in the community for more help in their home and of the carers who look after them for more support; notes that the solution adopted by Her Majesty's Government to meet the shortfall in Department of Social Security payments for claimants in private residential care depends on local authority contracts being in place next April; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to proceed with implementation of the full community care programme in April 1991 and to ensure adequate funding to enable local authorities to improve on the social service support for elderly and disabled citizens in the community.
I anticipate that some objection will be taken to the motion.
It is now almost four years since the Audit Commission began the present chain of reform in community care, with a report that recommended to the House:
If nothing changes the outlook is bleak.
At that time in 1986, fewer than 700,000 people in Britain were over 85. It is now more than two years since Sir Roy Griffiths presented to the Department of Health his report entitled "Community Care", with a sub-title that now reads rather ironically, "Agenda for Action". Sir Roy Griffiths recommended:
Merely to tinker with the present system would not address the central issues.
It took Ministers in the Department of Health longer to respond to Sir Roy Griffiths's report than it took him to write it. Nevertheless, last autumn the Secretary of State


presented a White Paper to the House. In that White Paper the Secretary of State observed that progress on community care
has been slower than the Government would like.
Today, after his announcement to the House, we are left with the conclusion that progress is to be even slower than the Government promised. We have now to wait until April 1993 for the central changes that were recommended by Sir Roy Griffiths in 1988.
By April 1993 almost 1 million people in Britain will be over 85. During the seven years that it has taken the Government to get their act together since the publication of the Audit Commission report, the number of people over 85 will have increased by more than one third. Every day of delay brings social service departments across Britain another 30 elderly people who need whole-body bathing. That is the urgency of the problem and the urgency of the human need that has to be measured against the timetable that was announced by the Secretary of State today.
It is only three weeks since the Secretary of State wrote to the coalition of community care campaigners on 25 June. The Secretary of State said:
I am not at the moment convinced by the arguments made for delay.
Plainly a moment is a long time in politics. Is the Secretary of State really convinced by those arguments now? Should we perhaps send round Dominic Lawson to inquire into his private thoughts after lunch? If he is convinced, when was he convinced, and what was it that convinced him? The Secretary of State has told the House that he has been convinced by what he referred to in a reply to one of my hon. Friends as the problem of the poll tax, which, it would appear, we are to believe the Secretary of State has noticed only since 25 June.
The Secretary of State cannot get away with pretending—as he has pretended so far this afternoon—that the problem of the poll tax has been invented by the local authorities, as if they thought it up. The local authorities had the poll tax thought up for them by the Government. The Government imposed the poll tax on the local authorities. The Government chose the poll tax deliberately because they wanted to impose the most painful and unpopular tax that they could think up to stop local authorities spending money.
The problem with the poll tax is that if local authorities are stopped spending money, they are also stopped improving their local services. I predict that the Secretary of State for Health will be only the first of many Ministers who will have to come to the House and admit that the real price of the poll tax is worse public services.
In the light of the Secretary of State's statement, I must ask, whatever happened to local accountability? Whatever happened to the principle that the poll tax would enhance the accountability of local authorities to their electors, thus making it possible for the Government to take a more relaxed view of local authority expenditure?
Mr. Thomason, the chair of the Association of District Councils, has put a figure on the impact of the community care programme on the poll tax. He has priced it at 15 per poll tax payer. It seems perfectly rational and reasonable to ask local electors to choose whether they are prepared to pay an additional £15 a year so that the old people in their community can be properly looked after and so that

they themselves, when they are old, can be looked after properly. If local electors are prepared to make that choice, what possible logic is there in the Government saying that they will deny the electors the opportunity of making that choice?
There is a gaping hole in the logic that the Secretary of State advanced to the House this afternoon—that delay is necessary because of problems with the poll tax. Local authorities will have to add the cost of community care on to the poll tax only if they do not get the resources to pay for community care from central Government. The Secretary of State always denied that this would happen. In my 16 years as a Member of this House and in 11 years shadowing the Government, I have never been involved in debating an issue on which Ministers were so generous with their promises of resources. Only three weeks ago, when we were debating the Lords amendments, the Minister for Health assured the House:
we have always said that adequate resources will be available".—[Official Report, 27 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 440.]
Indeed, she had said that—I am glad to receive her agreement on that point—as did Lord Henley and Baronness Hooper in another place. Indeed, so did the Secretary of State because his letter of 25 June continued:
On the issue of resources, Virginia Bottomley and I have constantly reiterated our commitment to ensuring that resources will be adequate. I repeat that assurance now.
I hope this is reassuring.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not add to that sentence the phrase "for the moment" that he used earlier in the letter, and conclude, "I hope this is reassuring for the moment."
What happened after 25 June? What happened to render inoperable the assurance in the letter of 25 June and the assurance that the Minister gave the House on 27 June? It is not that the Government were suddenly struck by the problem of the poll tax and noticed that it was high in many local authority areas. No—the Department of Health had a meeting with the Treasury, and when the Treasury saw the size of the cheques that it was supposed to sign, it bounced the Secretary of State.
When we last debated the matter three weeks ago, it was in connection with the Lords amendment relating to ring-fencing the grants for community care. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that our case for ring-fencing was that it would force Ministers out into the open. It would oblige them to come clean about how much or how little they were prepared to put on the table to pay for community care. If ever there was a case for ring-fencing, that case has been made by the shameful and shifty way in which those Ministers are now sliding out of the commitments that are only three weeks old.
Against that landscape of speeches strewn with broken promises, we are now asked to believe that this roll of bounced cheques cannot find the resources to improve the provision of social services before the general election, but that once polling day is out of the way the Government will buckle down and find the resources. Anyone who is capable of falling for that one really forfeits his right to the franchise—

Mr. Peter Thurnham: rose—

Mr. Frank Dobson: Here he is.

Mr. Cook: Yes, indeed, here he is. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on this occasion, but I am conscious of the strictures of Mr. Speaker, so this must be the last time that I give way.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking Ministers to come clean, so will he come clean and say how much a future Labour Government would put on the table? If there is a total of £24 billion-worth of unpaid voluntary care, will a Labour Government pick up the whole of that bill, half of it or a quarter? Will the hon. Gentleman now come clean and give us a figure?

Mr. Cook: No party could commit itself to replicating the £24 billion-worth of effort that is made by informal carers in our community. Indeed, I have not met a carer who has asked the Government to take over the entirety of the effort made by those informal carers. They have asked for a reasonable degree of support from the state for the efforts that they make. That £24 billion-worth of effort on their part is likely to fall through the floor unless we provide the respite care, training, help and relief that they need. That is what the hon. Gentleman's Government are proposing to postpone for two years.

Mr. Thurnham: That is no answer.

Mr. Tony Banks: Yes, it is the answer.

Mr. Cook: What is now clear is that the Government never intended to transfer to the local authorities any resources other than the money that is at present spent by the Department of Social Security. The big problem with that is that the money now spent by the DSS is not adequate for it to do even the job that it purports to fulfil.
The people who will not forget today's statement are those who will be reminded of it every month for the next two years when they receive a bill that they cannot pay for their residential private care. Many people will not be able to pay those bills even when they are stripped of the £10·05 that they receive for personal allowances; and when, as a result of surrendering those personal allowances, people cannot buy toothpaste, postage stamps or a newspaper, they still will not be able to pay the bill for the home.
It is all the more remarkable that the Secretary of State has allowed himself to be convinced on this issue because this is the one issue on which the Government have been defeated since the last general election. That defeat in March forced Ministers to come up with a lifeline for those people in homes where the DSS charge does not meet the charge of the home. That lifeline is section 9 of the Social Security Act 1990. It received Royal Assent on Friday, but became a dead letter this Wednesday. That section enables the Department of Social Security from next April to track local authority contracts with private homes and thereby reflect the real charges in the real world. There will now be no local authority contracts next April. There will not be any until April 1993.
However, April 1993 will be too late for the people who cannot pay their bills this month. The average length of residence in a nursing home is less than three years. Most of the residents who need support now will be dead before April 1993. It will be too late for the relatives who are seeing their savings disappear, because those savings will have vanished before April 1993. The average shortfall in meeting nursing home charges is currently £60 per week. By April 1993, that will mean an accumulated bill of

£7,000. April 1993 will also be too late for many proprietors, an increasing number of whom will solve the problem by clearing out the residents who are dependent on the DSS to pay the bill.
April 1993 will also be too late for many charities. This morning I received a letter from the Anchor housing association for the elderly which provides residential care for 1,300 elderly people. This year, Anchor has made a loss of over £500,000 as a result of the failure of the DSS to match what Anchor charges, even on its non-profit making basis. Anchor can bear that loss this year. It cannot bear that same loss in each of the next two years. It said to me:
We will not force any residents on the DSS level … to leave but we will have to ration the number of people without private means and paying only the DSS rate … to say .50 per cent. of all new residents we house. As a charity this is a strategy of last resort but we may have no choice".
It is perverse that the House is making charities unable to afford to accept people supported by DSS payments, the poorest people in our community.
Today's statement makes a mockery of the vote that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and I forced in the House last March. We forced the Government to recognise the problem to which they are shutting their minds once again.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the solution given to us a few months ago was that there would be some immediate relief —which has been provided—and further reviews and that, in the light of the reforms, the Government would consider whether assessment procedures were adequate? Does he agree that the independent inquiry is absolutely necessary before we know which costs are reasonable? Does he accept that there is no doom and gloom in the statement today but only a responsible fulfilment of that promise?

Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Lady that the reason why she and several of her hon. Friends voted with the Opposition in March was precisely that they did not trust the language "annual review of the charges". She referred to the Price Waterhouse independent inquiry. If Conservative Members say that the inquiry will solve the problem of coming up with a new national recommended rate, and, to take the area represented by the Minister of State, if that rate is set at a level to solve the problem in Surrey, the inquiry will have to recommend a new national rate which will be wildly extravagant in other areas. It will cost the Treasury vastly more to solve the problem than it would if the Government implemented the changes in April next year and allowed their preferred method to be introduced
The other people who will pay the price for the delay are elderly people who are in not residential but community care and the carers who cannot put off caring for those people for another two years and cannot wait until help is at hand. Already, some of their organisations have expressed their views on the prospect of delay. The director of the Carers National Association said:
Our members feel angry, cheated and betrayed … The Government has demonstrated that when it comes to us or the poll tax, we are not priority, because they know we cannot stop doing what we are doing.
Rather extraordinarily, in replying to a question on the statement, the Secretary of State said that Mencap would welcome the phasing that he had announced. I have before


me a letter of 11 July addressed to him. I do not know whether it has yet percolated through to his inner office. It says:
The promise of care in the community has been the lifeline for these parents and carers. Now this promise is not to be honoured because of Government fears that the estimated costs of implementing community care reforms would add 30p per week to poll tax bills … And so for less than the price of a cup of tea a week, community care is to be sold down the river.
It does not seem to me that Mencap welcomes the phasing that has been announced to the House today.
The language of both the organisations to which I referred may be more intemperate than the Secretary of State's. They may lack the cultivated urbanity of the Secretary of State. That is because they have to talk directly with their members, who wake every morning to the task of constant nursing care if, indeed, they slept through the night. Such people include a couple described by the Spastics Society in a circular which it sent to several hon. Members, but which appears to have missed the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who until the last election was director of the Spastics Society. In that letter the society described a couple in their 60s who care for their 40–year-old son who has cerebral palsy and very challenging behaviour. He cannot walk; he needs constant care; he cannot bathe himself; he constantly soils himself. The father has recently undergone heart surgery, the mother is being treated for cancer. It is doubtful whether they will last the two years until the care in the community package is implemented. The letter says:
Both parents … are desperate for a break, but have not been able to obtain any respite care for their son for over 5 years. His mother says she has got to the point where she has contemplated drowning him because the situation seems so hopeless.
I believe that that couple deserve hope. They deserve it before 1993. The Opposition will vote tonight to restore that hope to them.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'continues to support the Government's policy towards care in the community as set out in the White Paper, Caring for People, as an effective means of securing and delivering services on behalf of those people in need of social care; and endorses the approach towards implementation which the Government has adopted.'
We all echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) towards the end of his speech about the need to give added support to all those who care for elderly, disabled, mentally ill or mentally handicapped people.
This is a most unusual debate. As I said in my answers on the statement, we are no longer debating the merits of the Government's policy proposals. The Opposition have decided to give them their wholehearted support. They press us to implement the proposals at the pace which we originally intended and which, indeed, was my intention when the Bill was taken through the House.
So the House accepts that the Government's policies for care in the community set us on a path which is likely to lead us to enhance the support that we give both to people who suffer a disability of some kind and to those who care for a member of their family or a friend who is

in need. What divides us is that the Opposition have decided that it is right to go ahead in 1991 despite all the reasons that we have given of cost, difficulty of preparation and the impact of the community charge.
The hon. Gentleman asked me when I was driven to the conclusion that we should examine the timetable on which we were proceeding. It was in the aftermath of the local authorities' announcements of their community charge levels. My constituents and those of most hon. Members were surprised and taken aback by the level of the community charge. That above all worried them. We all appreciate that, in the light of those community charge levels, we must take stock of the pace at which we can allow local government expenditure to continue to rise, the extent to which the pace of progress in many desirable policies must be matched with the ability of the local taxpayer to afford it, and the pace at which we continue to put new burdens and responsibilities on local authorities.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a second.
In general, the first reaction of my hon. Friends was to accept, although with great disappointment in many cases, the common sense of what we propose. I feel sure that the common sense will be apparent to many in local government and to many community charge payers throughout the country when they put it in the context of all the other increases in local government spending and other new duties on local councils.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Tony Worthington: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I give way to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), because he sought to intervene earlier.

Mr. Nellist: The Secretary of State has just repeated a point that he made in his statement. He said that the local authorities are not ready for the new responsibilities. Is he aware that, on Monday, I received a letter from the director of social services in Coventry, saying that, if Coventry were given Government resources, it would be ready? Is he further aware of a survey by the Association of Directors of Social Services which showed that 95 out of 96 directors of social services said that, given the resources, they would be ready by April 1991? Is not the only problem not the local authorities but the fact that central Government funding is not available? That is what is needed to give carers and those who would benefit from care in the community the necessary support without adding to the intolerable burden of the poll tax.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that the overwhelming majority of directors of social services felt that they were ready to implement the new policies. I have no basis on which to challenge that. I accept that most of the voluntary organisations were ready to go ahead, and I correct what I said about Mencap earlier, when I was in error. I misunderstood the cue that I thought I was being given by the question. I now clearly recall that Mencap wanted to go ahead, and Sir Brian Rix, with whom I have had many conversations about this policy over the years, made some angry statements when he first heard of the speculation about delay.
I understand the disappointment, because one fact on which both sides of the House agree is that we look forward to the day when we can move from the present income support arrangements to the transfer of resources and the development of steadily improved care in the community. We are improving it now, with ever-growing levels of local authority spending, but there is a need to phase the introduction of all the new duties and responsibilities for local authorities. Many people, including Select Committee members, feel that there is a good management and social policy reason for moving forward more steadily than either the directors of social services or Ministers were first inclined to accept.

Mr. Frank Field: rose—

Mr. Worthington: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I want to give a short speech; I cannot give way all the time. I have just answered one intervention and if I immediately give way again, I shall not get on. I shall give way but not too often, otherwise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will quite correctly pull me up.
Let us put in context the pace at which we are increasing spending and services. Total local government spending has gone up by 25 per cent. in the past two years alone. That is the background to the present problem in local authority financing. As I said, personal social services spending by local authorities tends to go up about twice as fast as the generality of their expenditure. Personal social services current spending in local authorities in real terms has gone up 21 per cent. between 1984–85 and 1989–90—nearly double the increases for all local authority expenditure, which was 11 per cent.
During the Government's period of office, local authority personal social services expenditure on community care has risen 34 per cent. in real terms. That rise is flowing through into all kinds of increased provision of service, including 25 per cent. more home helps and meal services for the disabled up by 13 per cent. Such increases will presumably continue, and I have no doubt that there will be increased resources in future.
My announcement today is not an announcement of any reduction in resources. Tomorrow's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the totality of aggregate Exchequer grant to local authorities will no doubt determine the pace of events for spending next year. It is wrong to say that it is the policy of any political party that all social services expenditure will be met out of central taxation, not local taxation.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: No one has said that.

Mr. Clarke: In his intervention a moment ago, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East implied that the expenditure would not affect the community charge payer, and the only problem was that central Government would not put in all the money. No party is offering to put all the money in. The way in which we are transferring responsibility to local authorities means that they will eventually decide how much is spent on the policy in the light of whatever grant they receive from central Government. The community charge will be determined by the difference between the standard spending assessment established by the Government of the day and the level of spending on which they choose to embark.
I think that the hon. Member for Livingston said that the community charge would go up by only £15—but no one knows what the figure will be. That is his assessment, based on one set of local authority figures, of the amount by which the charge is likely to go up, in the first year alone, for care in the community policies. We all know that assessments of local authority spending are notoriously difficult to make. We also know that authorities such as Lancashire, Suffolk and Derbyshire are inclined to take no notice of such assessments, and are free to put the community charge level wherever they want.
Given that we all share the same concern for disadvantaged people, I submit that it is impossible for us to turn a deaf ear to the concerns of charge payers, many of whom are not well off. It is not right for the hon. Member for Livingston to say that another £15 next year for one policy alone should blithely be assumed as acceptable. I am not sure whether it is an accurate figure for the hon. Gentleman to put forward—

Mr. Cook: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I am about to refer to the hon. Gentleman, so I shall definitely give way when I have finished my point.
Earlier, I referred to the hon. Gentleman's reported comments about the likely level of expenditure next year if our proposals were implemented without phasing. I admit that the press cutting that I have is from the Morning Star, but the hon. Gentleman was also quoted in other newspapers. In the Morning Star he is quoted as saying:
Local councils will need an extra £1·5 billion over the next three years if they are to take over responsibility for the elderly and mentally ill from next April.
The hon. Gentleman then quoted figures showing that the report was a little inconsistent. The figure to which he referred was for one year. He was solemnly suggesting that £1·5 billion should be added to personal social services expenditure—an increase of 40 per cent.—in one year. He has not explained—he did not do so to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) when he intervened—how much of that would come from the taxpayer and by how much the community charge would go up in local authorities across the country if we followed his advice.
People caring for the disabled and elderly would find themselves at the receiving end of excessive community charge levels if we recklessly continued on the basis of the figures suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cook: I shall put two points to the Secretary of State. First, as he quotes those figures, may I point out that he does not need to read the Morning Star to obtain them; he can merely summon his own officials, who have those figures in copious detail in the document submitted to them by the settlement working group which negotiates with the local authority associations. Those figures show that local authorities put the estimate of care in the community at £829 million in the coming year—£400 million of which would come from the transfer of DSS money.
I repeat the question that I put to the Secretary of State at the end of his statement, to which he did not reply in his supplementary, and which he has had a long time to think about. Will he confirm that at no stage since those figures were submitted almost two months ago have his officials


queried a single one of the estimates? If he does not regard those estimates as acceptable, with which figure does he disagree and which one does he find excessive?
Secondly, I shall correct the record before the figure of £15 enters history as my invention. The figure of £15 came from Mr. Thomason, chair of the Association of District Councils who, until the Secretary of State addressed the House, I had believed was a member of the Conservative party.
I shall repeat the other question that I posed to the Secretary of State: if the figure is £15 or more, why does he have to make the decision about how much should go on the poll tax of every authority in Britain? Why, on the principle of local accountability about which we have heard so much from the Government, cannot the Government leave that to be resolved by the local electorate?

Mr. Clarke: My officials in the Government have never accepted as bound to be paid out the estimates that the hon. Gentleman is defending. I know that they are the local authority estimates—that is why I know that they are for one year, not three years, as he was reported as having said in the newspaper. It is a one-year increase, which he, as a shadow Minister, is extraordinarily accepting at face value and endorsing. He is telling the House that we should go ahead, which will cost another £1·5 billion. The implication of what he said is clearly that that money should be found.
As I said, £1,500 million is presumably the local authorities' best estimate of the amount by which they intend to increase their spending on personal social services alone. It is a total guestimate. We do not know where it will be spent, but the history of local government spending leads most of us to suspect that the figure is as likely to be an underestimate as an overestimate. We have no idea where the local authorities, in current hands and under current control, intend the money to go.
If the hon. Gentleman were ever a member of a Government, he would know that this is the process that we have been going through in discussing the consequences of this year's community charge levels. He takes a blinkered view. We are talking about personal social services, and he cheerily says that, next year alone, an extra £1·5 billion must go on personal social services expenditure by local government. As I said in my response to questions, next year local authorities are taking on new duties under the Children Act 1989 and the Food Safety Act 1990, and they have important new duties in relation to education.
The totality of that expenditure and the community charge will be a crushing burden on taxpayers throughout the country. It is no good the hon. Member for Livingston talking about accountability. I certainly have been using the language of accountability when arguing about the level of community charge in my county, as have most of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Opposition refute any idea of local authority accountability for this. They are in favour of high spending and high taxation by local government. They face the difficulty that they have no idea in what form the bill should be presented to local taxpayers. They do not have

a tax of their own, and they have no idea how this immense burden to the taxpayer—paying for burgeoning local government—will be parcelled up and shared out.
The hon. Member for Livingston is one of those who refuses to pay his local tax: he is a refusenick on the community charge. For that reason, I can only describe his attitude as cavalier and irresponsible when he attacks us for a policy that he supports and cheerily says that we should underwrite a bill which is fairly uncertain but is perhaps of the order of an extra £1·5 billion. The combination of his support of our policy and his criticism of its pace and his belief that we should simply go ahead without regard for any of the other consequences is quite incredible to the electorate and totally irresponsible on the part of the Labour party.

Mr. Worthington: On the issue of accountability, whether rightly or wrongly, the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that, after one year of the poll tax, the local authorities in Scotland are now accountable. That is one excuse for not introducing the policy; the lack of readiness of social work departments is said to be another, but they want to go ahead. As the Secretary of State believes that local authorities are now accountable, and as local authorities want to go ahead, why can we have the poll tax but not community care a year ahead?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East made it clear that he wishes to go ahead. When he produces a hugely increased community charge bill for his electors, he will say that the reason is that not enough central Government money has been put in.
The hon. Member for Livingston adopts the same approach, and appears to be promising vast amounts of central Government money next year for personal social services alone. We all know that the hon. Member for Livingston has no authority from his Front-Bench colleagues to promise that money. I do not believe for one moment that the Labour party would put that sum of money in, or anything like it.
The hon. Gentleman sees that there is a debate, sees a way to attack, his beard bristles in that engaging way, and up he gets to say that £1·5 billion is needed next year by local authorities for one small part of the policy area for which he has shadow responsibility. That is not a sensible way to proceed, and it is no way to demonstrate real care and concern for the client groups which are looking for continued development of policy along the lines that we have already seen, and for the evolution of that policy into a proper policy for care in the community.
I repeat what I said when I replied to questions on my statement: my announcement today did not contain any reductions in resources. There is no announcement of any cuts in social services provision. No one is withdrawing the entitlement to income support of those in residential care homes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is looking at the basis on which we must adjust income support in the next few years, until we are able to introduce the policy in full.
The hon. Member for Livingston talks about how my right hon. Friend might resolve some of the problems to do with a proper level of income support. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) has been harrying the Government to improve the present arrangements and has succeeded in getting the level up. We have increased expenditure on that front by £145


million, as a result of our defeat in the House, when we added £45 million. We also have the Price Waterhouse study on costs.
We can also go in for local variations. Sections of the Social Security Act 1990 pave the way for local variations based on local authority policy in future, but we do not have to wait for section 9. My right hon. Friend can already consider what evidence exists to justify a local variation system, but, as he has often explained, it is extremely difficult to get an effective local variation system in place. We are proceeding with a pattern of services in which I expect to see continued development and growth of support for all these disadvantaged groups, better preparation for and advantage taken of the time for the introduction of the new policy, and then the change to care in the community in 1993.

Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State is saying that nothing has changed as a result of the statement today. The point that I made about the statement was that a large number of organisations believed that the Government's word was their bond, and they have acted upon that. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Social Security has now told the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the answer that he gave was incorrect: people in day care facilities do not get help from income support.
A number of organisations which the Government, given their rhetoric, ought to applaud—those which have got up and shown entrepreneurial skills—believed that the Government were going to bring in the proposal by next year and have put their money where the Government's mouth is. They have got projects not merely on the drawing board but up and running, but they now face closure unless the Government come up with new money for them.
The Government believe in targeting. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that he will go away and try to seek resources which can be targeted on the projects which are running because the Government said that the scheme would start next year?

Mr. Clarke: I agree that I said, first, that I did not know of the particular voluntary body in Birkenhead. Then I picked up on the hon. Gentleman's sedentary remark—

Mr. Frank Field: They are all over the country.

Mr. Clarke: They are not all over the country. The hon. Gentleman must allow me to answer his intervention. If centres provide only day facilities and have no residents, they cannot obtain income support and cannot have been expecting to do so in future—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will not allow me to reply. He makes a case which frankly does not stand up, and he is trying to sustain it during my answer. We are not withdrawing any funds at the moment. If people are planning projects—

Mr. Field: The Government promised to pay.

Mr. Clarke: There was no such promise. That is total nonsense—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must allow me to reply.
If a flow of funds is going to a voluntary body of any kind at the moment, I have not said anything that will end that. If a body was anticipating a flow of money next year, presumably it was anticipating a decision to be taken by the local authority, which it has not yet taken, which it cannot have yet taken and which was not backed by any

promise made by the Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman made a bad point and is trying to barrack me throughout the answer. There has been no withdrawal of funds and no promise of funds next year. The hon. Gentleman has merely described a body which, no doubt with worthy intentions, has anticipated a decision by the local authority next year to give it added support. It is ridiculous to suggest that the country is full of people banking on some promise that we made to pay, because no such promise was made—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) must not sustain this constant barracking from a sedentary position.

Mr. Field: Some people believed the Government's word.

Mr. Clarke: It would be a ridiculous method of debating if both sides regarded themselves as entitled to speak at the same time throughout the debate.
No money has been withdrawn from any voluntary body. No plans have been drawn up for expenditure by any local authority next year. If the voluntary body was expecting expenditure by the local authority next year, it must look to the local authority to meet it. I do not accept the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point. Hon. Members say that nothing has changed—[Interruption.] If hon. Members decide that it is as well to conduct this debate among themselves, it is because they are reduced to making a case against the phasing which they cannot sustain, and they are doing so in an absurd fashion.
Various things have changed. We have announced additional resources for the care of the mentally ill, the beginnings of a specific grant for voluntary bodies giving help to people suffering from alcohol abuse and drug abuse, and greatly enhanced grants for training. Our announcement is a substantial advance for mentally ill people. The expenditure that we propose to support by the new specific grant is almost double existing expenditure by local authorities on residential care. We have given this specific grant because history shows that local authorities tend to give a low priority to mentally ill people compared with other groups that they are accustomed to supporting through social services.
We believe that there should be much closer collaboration between health authorities and local authorities providing for mentally ill people. We are therefore introducing, at a generous level, a specific grant which will oblige them to collaborate to unlock the resources which they will then spend on improving the community end of care for mentally ill people.
On alcohol and drug abuse, I acknowledge that the amount of spending that will be supported in the first year by the new specific grant is quite small—£2 million—but we were contemplating the new specific grant coming in to replace the income support income that voluntary bodies usually have. As there is no transfer of income support but also no ending of income support, income support revenue will still go to the voluntary bodies until the changeover in 1993. The £2 million which we now propose in support is in addition to existing expenditure. It will be new money. It is a benchmark for that specific grant, which will obviously have to be enlarged significantly in 1993 once the income support revenue for the voluntary bodies comes to an end.
I shall leave the issue of training to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who will speak at the end of the debate. The increased expenditure on the training of social workers which we have announced will mean a significant increase in the training activity of local authorities. That is an important part of how we must use the next three years. I expect local authorities to continue to expand and develop personal social services of all kinds over the next year or two, taking account of available resources and the ability of their local taxpayers to afford the pace of advance.
I believe that the collaboration between health authorities, local authorities and voluntary bodies in preparing for the new policy will continue. We shall see them getting closer and taking advantage of the work that they have already done. If they follow the phased steps which I have announced, the momentum will be maintained in the policy, and in 1993 we will see a much improved policy of care in the community for all the disadvantaged groups whom the House wishes to help.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I never thought that I would hear the Secretary of State make a disingenuous speech, but we have just heard a disingenuous speech and a disingenuous statement. I am surprised at his attempt to make out that the proposed changes will improve provision for disabled people and their carers. He must know that that will not happen. In fact, it will do the opposite.
The Secretary of State had the brass nerve to say that he was annoyed at the response by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his policies. Disabled people and their carers feel more than annoyed. My hon. Friend used the words "angry, cheated and betrayed"—not his words or my words, but the words of the Carers National Association. That is how disabled people and their carers feel. They feel let down by the Government. The Secretary of State made out that there were wonderful improvements and craftily implied that there would be a small, marginal improvement because funds for the mentally ill were ring-fenced and the rest of it, conveniently omitting to say that all the other funds for which we asked will not be ring-fenced. This delay means putting back schemes that many local authorities have already drawn up.
The announcement by the Secretary of State is a serious setback for disabled people and their carers. He is a skilful debater, but no amount of rationalising can obscure the fact that the Government have let disabled people down badly. We all know that the poll tax has backfired on the Tory Government. Instead of blaming local authorities, the electorate is blaming the Government, rightly, for the poll tax. To win votes—which is what this manoeuvre is all about—the improvements put in hand by local authorities are being deferred. The poll tax—the Government's baby—is the real reason for deferring important schemes.
Disabled people have become the sacrificial victims of the poll tax. That is a simple equation. I do not know how the Secretary of State sees that political morality, but it is appalling to conduct the affairs of state in such a way that the rights and interests of severely disabled people and their carers are sacrificed. The Opposition would not do

that, nor would some Conservative Back Benchers who are waiting to speak—their priorities would be to put disabled people and their carers first.

Mr. Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ashley: I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes to speak.
Under this Government, disabled people have gone to the bottom of the queue. Community care reform means a higher poll tax because the Government plan to hand over responsibility without sufficient cash. Despite all the manoeuvring by the Secretary of State, that is the bottom line of the debate. There is inadequate central funding for community care. We cannot blame things on the poll tax or on town halls; it is the Government's responsibility and their failure. That is what the debate is all about. The Secretary of State, seasoned debater though he is, cannot get round that basic fact, and that is why the public and disabled people will blame the Government. The Government cannot circumvent that reality. It is ironic that community care charges were introduced, not because of the plight of disabled people or of their carers but because of the rising costs of claims for income support for people in residential homes. I do not believe that anyone will dispute that. It is doubly ironic that cash considerations are forcing this decision. That is the reason for this damaging delay. We are coming full circle.
The Secretary of State says one thing about his projects, plans and policies; but clear, eloquent statements are being made by not only my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, whose speech I admired, but organisations representing disabled people that are working at the coal face as it were, and know at first hand how people are suffering. I think that I can claim that all of them—I am open to challenge—are appalled at the Government's actions. I do not see how any responsible Minister can find a hint of evidence to support the Government. I should not say to the people who are working with crippled, blind, deaf, spastic or mentally handicapped people that they are wrong. They unanimously condemn the Government. [Interruption.] It does not matter what the Government Whip says to the Secretary of State. All organisations representing disabled people are saying that. I shall sit down if I am challenged on that point and the Minister or the Whip can name one organisation that backs the Government, but I see that I need not give way.
If the changes are delayed, will the guidance still be published in September and will health authorities still be required to commit funds for community care projects? Delay is bound to mean that people in hard-pressed local authorities and the national health service will simply turn their attention to other matters. Like Ministers, they are busy people and delay means that they will carry out bypass operations and other projects that are dear to the hearts of voters. As a result of the Secretary of State's announcement, thousands of disabled people will be pushed aside. I regret that.
The care problems of disabled people cannot be solved overnight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, we have waited six years for changes and now they have been put further back. The Government's failure is politically embarrassing for the Secretary of State, but to many disabled people and their carers the proposals are not simply an embarrassment, but a disaster. Ministers should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: I have not spoken in the House before about community care but I have a special interest in it. For the first three years of its life I was a legal commissioner with the Mental Health Act Commission and during that time I played a small part in the drafting of those parts of the biennial report and the code of practice dealing specifically with community care for the mentally ill.
I support the Secretary of State's proposals. Even if he had not spoken about the community charge, I should have urged a transitional introduction of community care in the way that he suggested. One of my reasons is that during my time with the commission we were concerned, especially in the early days, about demands from the progressive wing—the psychiatrists, psychologists and some Opposition Members who are active in these matters—to put pressure on the authorities to empty the mental hospitals and return freedoms and rights to the patients. They thought that that could be done only by emptying our hospitals and making people go back into the community, whether ready or not. In the first year or two it was part of our task to bring quite clearly to the minds of those concerned that that was not necessarily always appropriate and that the proper provisions were not available on the ground to deal with the problem.
The community, in the sense of us all and not just those concerned with mental health or disabled people, is not ready to accept many people into the community and to treat them with the sympathy and understanding that they deserve. I regret to say that then and even now there are clear signs that the education of the public in such matters is not sufficiently developed.
During our discussions we met many people from the social services departments of local authorities. I pay tribute to many of them, especially directors, who were keen to play a much greater role in community care, not only for the mentally ill but more generally for other groups. Their keenness to do so did not hide the fact that they were often ill-equipped to provide the necessary facilities. Opposition Members may think that I am about to mention resources, which of course play a part. We did not conclude that the majority of the problems stemmed from lack of resources. Many of them stemmed from the fact that organisations, the number of people who had been trained to the right level in mental health care, and the number of approved social workers in place were quite inadequate. Sometimes in their keenness to be of help, social services directors ran away with the idea that they could manage when they could not. That is why I welcome in our proposals the assistance with greater training of those who in due course will carry out community care.
The people whom I have mentioned were in a great hurry and were not well equipped. As a result of the work carried out by the commission and other interested people, the progress towards community care for the mentally ill was slowed—I do not use the word delayed—so that we could take account of the needs. It is right to apply the same concept to other areas of community care. That is why I welcome the proposals.
Little has been said about the great work that is being carried out by other people who are interested and work in community care. Not only district health authorities, local authorities and the Government are concerned, because voluntary and charitable organisations are keen to accept

responsibility in an area in which they have a great deal of expertise. I should be sorry to see that expertise lost. I have already mentioned the community as a whole. Of course, we need more education and more help. People in families with someone who is disabled in some way will appreciate the extra resources which, whether the Opposition like it or not, have been provided by the Government for greater community care.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: They are provided by local authorities.

Mr. Kirkhope: No, by the Government.
My mother-in-law recently broke her hip and has just left hospital. I can speak highly of the assistance that she received from the voluntary sector and from the local authority social services department. She is grateful for that assistance and many other elderly and disabled people have good reason to be grateful for what they receive. However, it is a matter not just of gratitude but of our responsibility to such people. Plainly, the Government accept that responsibility in the implementation of the community care proposals and they are ready and willing to discharge it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). I do not know how he can justify his conclusion because, although large sums of money are involved—we should not treat large sums lightly—those sums demonstrate beyond peradventure that out in the community there is an existing unmeasured and unmet need. The Government propose to postpone the resources required to meet that need which inevitably will mean that they will be ignoring the need during the period of postponement. None of us should ever forget that.
The Secretary of State's statement was deeply disappointing. The Government's decision and the reason for it have obvious political overtones and implications. However, I wish to concentrate on the implications of the delay for the management of the implementation of community care, which already has a sorry history. The original Griffiths study commenced more than 10 years ago. Community care was marched to the top of the agenda and the professions geared themselves to face the consequences of fundamental change in the new approach to community care. That was welcome then and continues to be welcome now on all sides.
A long time afterwards, in spring 1988, the Griffiths consultation paper was published. Community care was again marched up and then down the hill. Then there was a long and worrying hiatus between 1988 and 1989, and finally in the winter of 1989 the White Paper was published. Expectations were again raised and people were led to believe that that was the final version of the scheme that the Government would implement. Like the proverbial grand old Duke of York, the Secretary of State has once again marched everyone back down the hill with today's announcement.
Whether the Secretary of State thinks that community care is good, bad or indifferent, his approach is a totally stupid way to govern. Local authorities and care professionals do not know whether they are coming or going. It is quite disingenuous for the Secretary of State to


say that his announcement will change nothing. Whether he likes it or not, people have sensibly been making professional arrangements to take advantage of the scheme in April 1991. Now, all those plans have crumbled into dust in their hands. The Secretary of State may say that it is merely phasing-in, but in fact it is a two-year or more delay. That is significant in the time scale that we are discussing, especially bearing in mind the few years that some elderly people live in residential homes before they die. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a severe and fundamental change.
The Government have not taken into account the real costs of such a sudden change of direction. My local authority has, quite properly, made painful sacrifices in an attempt to use its present resources to anticipate the changes and so meet the previous target date of April 1991. That work has now been wasted; it will have to be set aside and begun again in two years. The delay will mean that a great deal of work, such as case management pilot projects and assessment procedures, in which my local authority has engaged diligently and thoroughly, has now gone out of the window. That is a shame because the results of that work and what could have been achieved by April 1991, had the Government allowed the policy to proceed, were encouraging.
Irrespective of what we think of "Working for Patients", "Providing Better Health" and "Caring for People", which embrace the health board changes, and whatever we think of the general practitioner contract changes, which embrace a systematic survey of the health needs of the elderly, they could have been introduced and administered much better as an integrated package. My local social work authority has found that general practitioners in rural areas are now referring greater numbers of elderly people who require occupational therapy. It could cope with that much more easily if it had the advantage of the care in the community package that was due to be implemented next April. It now has to go back to the drawing board to find a way to meet that additional demand on resources, without the initial assistance that was expected from the implementation of the package. If I had longer, I could illustrate the confusion and the disruption that will be caused, and I am sure that other hon. Members could do the same.
There is another problem to which the Government have paid no attention. Although the changes are not so fundamental in Scotland, the changes to the child care services law in England and Wales will be imposed on local authorities in Scotland not, as the Secretary of State said, in April, but in two or three years' time. The social work department in my constituency will have to cope with the fundamental changes in community care at the same time as trying to cope with the changes in child care services. That works against the Government's argument in favour of delaying the policy.
I can cite a case similar to that cited by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). It is a Borders region authority problem. It has inherited a home that was recently closed by a religious order. It is situated in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), and it was closed for valid reasons. However, the local authority now has to cater for another 54 people. It was in the

process of setting up a community care package for all those people between now and April 1991, and it does not know what the dickens it can do now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has delayed the care in the community policy. I am sure that the local authority will, in the end, make sensible and proper provision, but it will now have to be at the expense of existing services.
The key to community care is the importance of the individual assessment, which measures individual needs. We cannot have the real benefit of community care until the Government properly fund and support that part of the community care package. I accept that large sums of money are involved, but the way to unlock funds for community care is to give local authorities a single budget and the flexibility to provide the domiciliary support to take people out of institutions. That would generate money that is currently locked up in inappropriate care in institutions. The Secretary of State cannot say that no changes have been made to his plans because the crucial key that will open the door to the resources needed and to treatment in the community has been thrown away and lost for another two years. That is deeply worrying and the right hon. and learned Gentleman deserves all the criticism that he has received from hon. Members.
I welcome the earmarked fund that the right hon. and learned Gentleman announced this afternoon. It is a positive step in dealing with mental illness. Can it be deployed in providing residential care for the demented elderly? I refer to not just the frail elderly, but to those who are demented and require a much higher and more consistent package of care. They need higher staff ratios and must be cared for in residential establishments. It would help if residential accommodation for the demented elderly could be paid for under the scheme.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I can confirm that psychiatric services would be included.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that small mercy. I should also like to know when the Price Waterhouse report will be published, as that will be important.
Community care has been organised since the mid–1980s, and that is to be welcomed. However, I say with all the sincerity that I can muster that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement today will simply shave off from existing services the money that local authorities need to provide community care now. That is not in anyone's interests and it will mean misery for a large number of our most vulnerable citizens. It is another direct consequence of the hated poll tax, which should have never reached the statute book and which, I hope, will be withdrawn at an early stage.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am always pleased to participate in any debate in which the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) also participates. He and I have devoted many years and a great deal of time to the quality of life and the interests of the most vulnerable groups in society. However, on this occasion I have not reached the same conclusion as he did about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's statement. In fact, in a quiet way I warmly endorse the phasing in of community care. My right hon. and


learned Friend knows that, over the years, I have warned that we have been proceeding at too fast a rate and that many people would suffer as a result.
I wish to pick up one or two points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I refer him to the Select Committee's report on community care, "Planning and Co-operation". The report states:
We call upon the Government to ensure that, in the event of a delay"—
or the phasing in that was announced this afternoon—
sufficient money is allocated to local authorities to enable them to purchase services from those new community care projects which have been set up this year in the expectation that their costs would be met by local authorities in the coming year … If there is to be a delay, we recommend
that the Department of Health requires
that local authorities use the intervening period to prepare joint health and social services community care plans for their area.
That is still lacking, and I do not think that it could have been achieved if the policy had been implemented, as originally planned, on 1 April 1991.
The report also recommended that sufficient money be allocated
to train staff in assessment and case management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and I know from our work on the Select Committee that there are inadequate numbers of people yet able to undertake that task. It also recommended that sufficient money be made available
to put in place workable collaborative structures with health authorities and other local authority departments such as housing departments and with voluntary organisations; and to draw up contractual agreements with statutory bodies and with voluntary organisations.
I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend will study with great care not only that report but the other reports on community care recently published by the Select Committee. I do not think that all is doom, as has been prophesied by one or two hon. Members during the debate.
I wish briefly to mention the Select Committee's report, Session 1984–85, on community care for the adult mentally handicapped and mentally ill. The Committee pointed out that the policy of community care
means more than reducing the number of hospital beds".
The report went on that it means instead
the creation of a whole variety of alternative facilities, supportive services for people and their families who have little contact with statutory services…and the redeployment of thousands of staff and the switch of capital resources.
Perhaps it is also appropriate to quote the 1986 Audit Commission report, to which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred. It pointed out that the reduction in NHS provision for the mentally ill had run ahead of the build-up of community services. The commission also highlighted geographical variations in standards, the need for bridging finance, the organisational confusion between statutory agencies, and inadequate service staffing.
For all those reasons—and many are still relevant today—I warmly support my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to phase in community care. That will produce a better community care policy, improved facilities, and more understanding.
The 1985–86 report of the Social Services Select Committee on the prison medical service expressed grave concern about the number of discharged mentally ill patients who ended up in prison because of the failure of community care and the lack of hospital beds for

psychiatric cases. Prison is not the place for individuals who have offended because of mental illness. Community care is not a panacea for all the evils that are with us today, and it should never be considered as such. It is the approach of management that can pay real dividends for the patient. In too many cases, it is based on a pecuniary policy introduced by health authorities to save on the cost of long-stay psychiatric and geriatric facilities.
In my own constituency, the people of Macclesfield have been raped and pillaged by the avaricious activities of Mersey regional health authority and its aggressive bulldog of a chairman, Sir Donald Wilson. The birthright of the people of Macclesfield has been stolen from under their very noses by a politically appointed, unelected manager who too often has appeared more interested in achieving capital receipts than in providing health care and services for my constituents.
The Macclesfield infirmary branch, which houses a geriatric ward, was closed down and sold for £3·5 million to Sainsbury to build a superstore. The Mary Dendy hospital has been sold off to Messrs. Barratt for houses, so that the mentally handicapped do not now have the same range of facilities that they did when that hospital existed. Part of Parkside hospital for the mentally ill in my constituency—a fantastic area of peace and tranquility in the heart of Macclesfield—has been sold off to McAlpine for houses against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the people of my constituency. I say that with some regret, but I am concerned about what is happening to the facilities for vulnerable people in my constituency.
I have served for many years on the Social Services Select Committee, and my experience has been that in too many cases health authorities have discharged too many patients, too soon—and for the wrong reasons into a community that is unprepared, unwilling, and, in some cases, unable to accept them.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winterton: No, I shall not give way, because I have a lot to say. I feel deeply on this subject, and I want to call on my experience and knowledge gained in recent years.
Why do not we follow the example of the Dutch? I recently led the Select Committee on a valuable visit to Denmark and to the Netherlands. We visited a large community for mentally handicapped people in Noordwijk, which is close to Amsterdam. That village community has 1,000 mentally handicapped residents—850 of whom live on the main site and 150 in group homes nearby. A small number of them are severely handicapped. Residents live not in the old conventional Victorian hospital which is so typical and which we say that we need to get rid of, but in about 30 houses around a large site, each containing about 25 residents. They live in proper apartments of between eight and nine people. The site is well landscaped and contains a swimming pool, horticultural plots, a supermarket where residents pay for their goods by Giro bank card, a hairdresser, a clothes store, and a new activity centre with impressive education and recreational facilities. It also includes hydrotherapy and—dare I use this word in the House—a "snoozlroom", which is amazing in aiding the rehabilitation and calm of some of the mentally handicapped who require that sort of treatment.
That village community has its own doctor, dentist and physiotherapy service. There are also nurses' homes on the site and a creche for the children of the staff. There are more than 1,000 staff. Not all are full time, but 650 are nursing staff. There is a nurse training school as well.
That village community is using the fantastic facilities that exist and is not selling them off for houses or other forms of development. It is using them for the progressive treatment of mentally handicapped people. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) also visited that community, and he was as impressed as I was with the facilities. I am concerned for the future—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winterton: I shall give way to my right hon. and learned Friend uniquely.

Mr. Clarke: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to put in a word for Sir Donald Wilson, whom he described as raping and pillaging Macclesfield. He must realise that the 19th century large mental hospitals are being sold to produce money for capital investment in a successful region. Mersey is developing its policies for the mentally ill and will do so with the aid of the new grant. It is one of the most successful regions in the country in reducing its waiting list for non-urgent operations, and it has recorded many other achievements. Will my hon. Friend moderate his language and his attacks on one of our most successful health authorities?

Mr. Winterton: I will not alter a single word of my comments about the actions of Mersey regional health authority in my constituency. I am fully supported by an overwhelming number of my constituents, including those who deal with the vulnerable groups of mentally handicapped people and others.
My concern for the future—and I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend is still present to hear this—is heightened by his somewhat unfortunate action in refusing to ring-fence local authority funds for all community care, to prevent that provision being chipped away at, siphoned off or downright plundered to boost budgets to provide more high-profile and electorally advantageous services.
Is it correct that my right hon. and learned Friend will be meeting only about 70 per cent. of the costs to local authorities of looking after mentally ill people who are discharged from hospital? If that is the case, it is a fraud. He owes it to these people to advance 100 per cent. of the cost. I am delighted that the resources for the mentally ill have been ring-fenced, but the amount given is important and should represent 100 per cent. of the cost.
We are gambling with the welfare and lives of the weakest and the most vulnerable people whose care is our responsibility. We cannot and must not turn a blind eye to the fact that we have failed so far to ensure that we have put in place the appropriate infrastructure and support that is necessary if that policy is even to stand a chance of working.
A group of people who include the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, and other members of the Select Committee, are deeply concerned about the carers. They are a vital part of the success of community care. Of the 6 million carers in Great Britain, 3.7 million carry the main

caring responsibility; 1.4 million devote at least 20 hours a week to caring, with more than half of them spending at least 50 hours a week on their caring duties. That staggering resource should be nurtured and supported in a planned, proper and systematic manner. I may well rile my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) when I say that its continuation and extension cannot and must not in future be left to chance. If community care is to work, positive steps must be taken to ensure that local authority social services departments are obliged to make it a prime objective to bring together and disseminate information about the statutory and voluntary services in their areas that would be of assistance to carers and their dependants.
Furthermore, local authorities must consult carers and their representatives regularly about their community care plans; high priority must be given to developing domiciliary support services for carers; greater resources must be made available for training; many more respite facilities must also be made available. Failing that, many of these carers will collapse. Those whom they look after will then automatically become the responsibility of the social services departments.
This is a critical debate. Sadly, party politics and political sparring have formed far too large a part of it. We are seeking to do our best for these most vulnerable groups. Through my work on the Select Committee and elsewhere, I shall continue to seek to represent their best interests and improve their quality of life, come hell or high water, come pressure from Government Whips, come pressure from any other source. I believe that the House has a duty to safeguard the future of these people.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Before the debate began I was extremely angry both about the community charge and about the lack of implementation of care in the community. I did not think that I could be angrier, but the laughter of the Secretary of State and of other Conservative Members when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) described what was happening to the health service in his constituency has made me angrier than ever. So has the statement that the Secretary of State made today.
One thing that his statement has made clear to us is that one of the purposes of the so-called community charge is to destroy all sense of community and to turn the most vulnerable sections of society against one another. The Secretary of State said that people must be protected from having too great a burden of community charge laid upon them and that therefore the implementation of the provisions relating to care in the community must be delayed. However, it is the poorest and the most overcrowded families who suffer the most from this unfair tax. They have to pay far more than those who live in big, spacious properties.
It is these same poor people who have to pick up the pieces of the shattered welfare state that is under attack by the Government. They have to do the extra unpaid work of caring for people in the community. They have no assistance. The result of more and more cuts is that they receive less and less help. If he was really concerned about their problems, the Secretary of State could relieve their burden by abolishing the community charge.
There is a hospital for the mentally ill in my constituency. Proposals are afoot to close St. Clement's hospital and sell the land and buildings. The Secretary of State says that he never allows such a hospital to be sold off without ensuring that even better provision is made for the mentally ill patients in the community. I hope that he will do that when the closure of St. Clement's is considered.
There is no provision for severely mentally ill and severely disabled people in the community. If the Secretary of State's Department always makes sure that there is good provision for these people in the community when hospitals are closed, how does he explain the fact that people are living on the streets in cardboard boxes? Mentally ill patients are being discharged from hospitals every day, their possessions in a plastic bag, and given a list of hostels where they can look for accommodation, even though everybody knows that those hostels are already full. They therefore end up on the streets, and their condition gets worse and worse.
If the community charge is cut, due to cuts in public expenditure, that will lead to more money in the pockets of the rich, but public expenditure cuts will lead to misery, uncertainty and suffering for the most disadvantaged people. After a lifetime of work, when they become old, frail, sick or disabled, having been squeezed dry in order to profit others, little provision is to be made for them. They are thrown on the scrap heap. They are told, "Wait a few years; you can go swing your hook in the meantime."
I have tried to discover the scale of the problem in Tower Hamlets. In particular, I have tried to find out how many young severely disabled people need care in the community, and what it will cost. I have received no answers during the last three months, although I know personally of six cases. Two of them are severely disabled young men, paralysed from the neck down as a result of injuries in rugby matches.
I digress in order to say that something ought to be done about the rules of that dangerous game. Protective clothing should be worn, similar to that which is worn by those who play American football. That might prevent terrible accidents, leading to total paralysis and the ruin of young men's lives. Those injuries are not uncommon. When my son was a young boy, I spent endless time in the accident and emergency department of my local hospital because of injuries that he and his friends suffered in rugby games.
There are four young disabled people in Charles Key lodge who would like to live in the community with support. There is a frail elderly lady whose husband can no longer look after her on his own, and other people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. All those people, as well as mentally ill and handicapped patients, will be very expensive to look after. Rehabilitation programmes in national health service hospitals need to be funded to enable them to prepare for life in the community. However, money for that purpose has not been provided. We need central funding that is ring-fenced so that they can be properly looked after in the community.
From the cases that I have examined, it seems that one of the problems is the demarcation line between the national health service and social services. That applies to both funding and the work that is done. If someone is paralysed and needs a catheter and help for bowel functions, the question is whether that is to be regarded as medical help or dealt with by a carer who has been trained

just for that purpose. That question has not been answered. It has resulted in help for individuals who are waiting for release from hospital being delayed.
I have referred before to the case of Corporal Bill Blackburn, but I have been unable to talk about him for more than a few seconds. His case graphically illustrates what is happening but what should not be happening. Corporal Bill Blackburn was injured three years ago in a rugby accident. He is tetraplegic and paralysed from the neck down. That young man, who is not yet 30, was admitted to the Odstock spinal injuries unit near Salisbury three years ago. Two years ago, he was admitted to the Queen Elizabeth military hospital on the premise that he would soon be able to live in a specially adapted flat that we had obtained for him in the area where his mother lives, on the Isle of Dogs. We used pressure to obtain that flat for him.
A dispute arose over who would be responsible for funding his care in the community. The health authority offered a district nurse, but the service could not guarantee that he would be taken out of bed before 11 am. He was also told that he would have to be put back in bed before 7 pm. That is no life for a young man. He rejected that proposal and asked whether alternative arrangements could be made, with three carers taking it in turns to look after him. While a number of case conferences took place, Corporal Blackburn got on with his rehabilitation programme. In April 1989 he went to New York, where he won medals in sports for the disabled.
He says that he does not want or need sympathy—that all he wants to do is to get on with his life. He has waited for three years to get into his flat so that he can again live a full life. However, the conflict between the NHS and the local authority social services continues.
He was given a discharge date of November 1989, but it was not kept because of the disputes over money and who should do which job. After pressure from me, the director of social services went to the military hospital to see Bill Blackburn and promised him that he would definitely be discharged by the end of January 1990. Because it was the director of social services who made that promise, Bill spent money on a washing machine and fitting his flat with blinds. He really believed that this time he would be discharged. It was not to be. I have a letter from the social services department which says that, if the Government cannot be made to understand the problems for local authorities of funding these cases, which cost perhaps upwards of £30,000 a year, some even double that, the legislation will be meaningless.
The local authority says that it cannot find the money to look after Bill Blackburn without a financial contribution from the health authority. The health authority said that the health service contribution has to be in relation to the provision of health care skills and that it does not accept that it is a district health authority responsibility to contribute directly towards Mr. Blackburn's social care needs.
It requires the judgment of Solomon to decide which are social care needs and which are health care needs. It gives the local authority an opportunity to yo-yo backwards and forwards and continue arguing, while Bill Blackburn is still in the military hospital. The Secretary of State's statement today just adds to that yo-yo effect.
Bill told me recently that he hides his head when the consultant goes around the hospital because he knows that he will be asked whether there is any news from Tower


Hamlets council. There is no news. He knows that the bed has been needed for years to help the rehabilitation of others who have had accidents or who are severely disabled. He does not want to settle for life in an institution, and why should he have to do so when he is a young man? It would not be right and proper for him. Surely the proposals for care in the community should be able to be used to help someone like Bill live a full life, yet they are not working.
The Secretary of State and his team must suffer either from a lack of imagination or from a lack of conscience when they can come here and blandly make proposals which will postpone help for all such people. Perhaps they do not realise the heartbreak involved. I challenge the Secretary of State to go down to the Queen Elizabeth military hospital to see Bill Blackburn and explain his policies and tell Bill when he will be able to use his flat on the Isle of Dogs.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Bow and Popular (Ms. Gordon) is calling for extra spending but she seems to forget how relatively low the level of spending was when the Labour party was last in power. In 1979 spending on community care services was just over £1 billion. The latest figure is well over £3 billion—an increase of 68 per cent. in real terms over eight years. She should bear that in mind.

Ms. Gordon: The hon. Gentleman must realise that many hospital wards and beds have been closed since then and there is far more need for care in the community than there was when the hospital service was more full and efficient.

Mr. Thurnham: More hospitals closed under the previous Labour Government than under this Government.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said that he thought that people with disabilities would be disappointed with the Government. I think that they will be disappointed with the Opposition. I would have thought that we could have had a full-day's debate on something as important as care in the community and I am disappointed that it is only a half-day debate. The Opposition's motion calls upon Her Majesty's Government to "ensure adequate funding". When I asked the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—I am grateful that he gave way to me—about what level of funding the Labour party would provide if it were in power, he was not able to give me an answer. I should like to take him to the kiosk at the side of the Chamber and buy him a tin of humbugs because that is what it is. The motion calls on the Government to provide funding, but the Opposition cannot provide an answer when asked about their proposals.
People with disabilities will be disappointed that the Opposition have not come forward with proper policies. However, we can see their difficulty. The Leader of the Opposition has gone on record as saying that 15 out of 16 working taxpayers would not pay anything extra if his party were in power. I understand that the hon. Member for Livingston will not pay his community charge. Therefore, there would be no resources to put into extra

community care. That is why the hon. Member for Livingston cannot provide an answer and why he has to talk in vague terms about adequate funding. All he could say was that he would want to provide a reasonable amount. The Government have increased spending on community care substantially. We have done more than the Labour party is offering to do.
The Government are right to phase in community care because it would be wrong to go for a big-bang approach. The chief executive of Bolton local authority has sent me a fax saying that Bolton is willing and ready to take on implementation of the Act, provided there is the necessary financial support. However, it has overspent on the budget for Network homes by about £500,000. The cost of providing for those in Network homes is far too high. The figures I have show an average cost per resident of about £22,000 a year. In a voluntary home a few miles away with what I believe to be a higher standard of care, the cost is £12,000 a year. The existing resources are not being used efficiently. Before calling for extra resources we must see that existing resources are used more efficiently. I call on the Government to issue strict guidelines to local authorities to use the phasing-in period to involve voluntary groups much more fully.
I received a letter today from Fidelity Simpson, the parliamentary adviser to the Spinal Injuries Association. She said:
The delay gives local authorities ample opportunity to fully consult with organisations of disabled people in their area and we urge the Government to stress this in their guidance on planning. The Social Services Inspectorate Report on the Disabled Persons Act issued in January 1990 highlights how 'service developments for physically disabled people are often given a lower priority than service developments for other groups of service users.' It goes on to recommend that 'social services authorities should progress the direct involvement of disabled people in the strategic and operational planning of services at elected member and officer levels'.
That is excellent. It shows that one voluntary group sees this time as an opportunity to become more involved. I call on both Bolton local authority and other local authorities to involve voluntary groups to a much greater extent.
The Bolton Handicap Action Group has set up a charitable trust and wants to play a part. It should be helped to do so. If voluntary groups have not had enough help in the past, they should be given more help to organise themselves to provide a service which can be done much more efficiently and effectively than by local authorities which are riddled with high overheads and restrictive practices and are concerned far more with bureaucracy than providing care for individuals.
In my constituency there is a severely disabled young man by the name of Paul Hargreaves. He desperately wants more care. His mother has told me repeatedly that she cannot go on any longer. However, the local authority has failed to provide care for him. It has to reconsider its priorities and provide help where it is needed. If necessary, we should look carefully at the proposals to allow local authorities to give cash for care. We were not able to secure an amendment on that the other day, but we should devolve packages of care whereby people in need can have money to buy in care services far more efficiently than they could be provided by local authorities. I call on local authorities to use this phasing-in time to improve the standard of care and the way in which they organise it.

Mr. John McAllion: The idea of care in the community is one to which all hon. Members subscribe. People who need not remain hospitalised in long-term institutions must be given the opportunity to live independently in the community.
We can all agree at least on that point, but what separates the Opposition from the Government is the context in which we place the idea of care in the community. For us, it must be pursued for its own sake. It represents a substantial and qualitative leap forward for thousands of citizens who do not receive the quality of care that should be theirs of right. The Opposition regard care in the community as an end in itself, albeit one with massive resource implications for the Government and the taxpayer. The Government regard it not as an end but as a means to an end that has little to do with improving the quality of services for people in need, as a means of cutting the cost of the national health service and as a cheaper alternative to other options.
The Government further regard care in the community as a means by which the private sector can be allowed inside the national health service to pick off, one by one, the nice little earners that they have identified. I do not doubt for a minute that the Government's friends in the private sector will be able to provide private care under the new community care proposals, but in the main they will put profit first and patients second. Despite the rhetoric of Conservative Members, that is a fundamental reality which they will not be able to overcome. They cannot deny that the Government are promoting the private sector through their care in the community policies.
I consulted the excellent magazine Labour Research for 1987, which showed that there were 100,000 elderly and mentally and physically handicapped people in private nursing and residential homes in the United Kingdom. Yesterday, I telephoned the Library to ask how the statistics had changed in the intervening period. It told me that in March 1989, according to the review of private health care, there were not 100,000 but 231,800 elderly, chronically sick and physically disabled people in private nursing and residential homes. That figure does not include mentally handicapped people, so it is actually even higher. Hon. Members know from constituency experience that since March 1989 the number of private residential and nursing homes has mushroomed further. The intention of the Government is to encourage the private sector to provide for mentally and physically handicapped and elderly people.
The reality is that thousands of the most vulnerable people in our community are being shipped out of the national health service, which has looked after them for most of their lives, and handed to private providers, the motivation of most of whom is to make money from their predicament. Does not the realisation that that is happening send a shiver of apprehension down the spines of those Conservative Members who still have a conscience? If it does not, it should be doing precisely that.

Mr. Raison: rose—

Mr. McAllion: The right hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me—I do not have time to give way.
A report was recently issued by the director of social work on Tayside regional council. It questions the ethics of the Government's encouragement of health boards to use

private contractors and to make an alternative provision for the chronically sick and elderly in their hospitals. He writes:
Given the vulnerability of the client groups affected by these arrangements, the question of whether they can give informed consent to these changes must be in doubt, and questions have been raised about whether the quality of care they will receive will be equal to that available in a hospital environment. This latter issue was raised recently when general practitioners in one Scottish Region objected to providing services free of charge to the many nursing home residents who previously had received medical and nursing care in Health Service hospitals.
Surely the report is right to question the ethics of a deal struck between the Government, health boards and private contractors—a deal that is essentially about money —the consequence of which is to transfer vulnerable patients into potentially exposed circumstances in which the quality of care that they receive can be significantly reduced. Does not it give hon. Members pause for thought that we have just passed legislation that makes it much more likely that many more vulnerable people will be transferred into such potentially exposed circumstances?
One of the most revealing documents on the Government's attitude to care in the community is the recent Scottish Office consultation paper on specific grants for mental illness. The basic concept behind it is good: first, that the current level of community-based services for people with mental illnesses is far too low; and, secondly, that something must be done to improve those services. No one would argue with that, but on reading into the document a different picture emerges. Page 1 states:
The policy aim is twofold: to reduce the numbers of mentally ill people requiring admission to hospital … and to enable mentally ill people to leave hospital.
Page 2, under the heading,
types of project eligible for assistance",
states that the
main criterion for judging applications
is the
extent to which the proposed project could assist in providing for, or supporting community living … and in so doing help to reduce the need for hospital admissions or facilitate the discharge of persons from hospital.
It would appear that the true purpose behind the provision of specific grants on mentall illness is simply to empty hospitals. The director of social work in Tayside region described it as placing
excessive emphasis on hospital discharge programmes.
I can understand the Government's reasons for introducing care in the community. It reduces costs in the health service, transfers the financial burden from the Government to local authorities and, possibly more important, reduces the requirement for beds in psychiatric hospitals, particularly those located in prime development sites, thereby making it easier for the Government to sell them and to acquire a capital receipt.
Has that anything to do with helping mentally ill people? Are they a priority in the Government's policies? The answer to those questions must be a resounding no. If they had been a priority, the Government would have adopted a different approach. First, they would have assessed the need for community-based services. Secondly, they would have targeted resources to increase annually the level of such services that could be provided. Thirdly, they would have geared hospital discharge programmes to the community-based services that are available for those leaving hospitals.
The fact that the Government have made a priority of the hospital discharge programmes and geared funding to maximise the emptying of those hospitals reveals the true nature of their commitment to care in the community. They put buildings, costs, revenue and profits before people who depend on services.
This afternoon, the Secretary of State made the absurd suggestion that local authorities had not prepared plans to implement the care in the community proposals, which excused the delays that he announced. That is sheer nonsense. The plans that have been made by councils are ready for implementation. I have three lengthy reports from Tayside regional council on the plans that it has developed to implement it. Its convenor of social work, Councillor Jim Mudie, who is the convenor of the social work committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, was quoted this morning in the Scottish press as saying that councils in Scotland are ready and willing to meet the Government's original deadline of 1 April next year. What is lacking is the Government's resolution to make available the resources that would make it possible to keep to their timetable. They realise that if they do not provide the resources to proceed in April 1991 it will have an impact on poll tax levels in a general election year.
Ultimately, that means that the Government have decided their priorities. They had to choose between implementing their care in the community policies and backing off and trying to save their political skins in an election year. The fact that they chose the latter speaks much of the Government's attitude over the past three or four years and explains why they will not be the Government after the next general election.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: As a wholehearted supporter of the Government's policy on community care, I was disappointed to learn that we cannot go ahead on 1 April 1991 in the way intended. I found most offensive the rather unpleasant way in which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was suggesting that elderly, frail and disabled people will be decanted into the streets. That is simply not true; it will not happen. I find it deeply offensive that the old and the frail should be cynically manipulated and used as a political football.
Sir Roy Griffiths, the author of the splendid report which led to the legislation, said a few weeks ago:
There is a serious situation out there which needs tackling.
He said that if there was a delay, he
would like to see a lot of justification".
I agree wholeheartedly.
I was pleased to learn that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team will not be postponing their excellent proposals, but will be phasing them in sensibly. I and many professionals in the caring community were concerned that the proposals would be put on ice. There were worrying reports in the newspapers that the delay would save the community charge payer £15 a year, or 30p a week. If that had been the reason for the decision, it would have been immoral nonsense.
Sir Roy Griffiths stressed the need for justification and said that there will never be precisely enough money for

community care. It is an untapped resource. The Select Committee said that carers save the community £24 billion a year. We owe them a debt, and they will not be forgotten.
It is quite sensible and proper that local authorities do not implement the proposals with a big bang, because the Government would be held hostage by left-wing authorities—[Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but left-wing authorities would not cut their women's units, their gay units, their police monitoring units or their civic newspapers; they would cut care in the community. They would bring in the television cameras to show elderly people being thrown out of homes to gain some political advantage.

Mr. Allen McKay: What about ring fencing?

Mr. Hayes: I have always supported ring fencing, as has Sir Roy Griffiths.
I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has met his road to Damascus today as he announced a new specific grant to support services for the mentally ill to ensure a higher priority for those services; a new, specific grant for the funding of voluntary bodies providing services for drug and alcohol misusers who were given low priority in the past; a new specific grant of £35·5 million for training social services staff; more support for those working with the elderly, children, the mentally handicapped and the physically disabled; and more support for post-qualification training courses.
It is a welcome change of policy, which could be called creeping ring fencing. The Government clearly appreciate that, as we are about to spend £800 million or £1 billion of taxpayers' and charge payers' money, we must ensure that it is properly spent.
The House has agreed to legislation suggesting that we should be kind to small, terrified, furry animals, so I shall be particularly kind to the hon. Member for Livingston. He suggested that disabled people would be severely disadvantaged. Has he forgotten my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security's 20–point plan specifically to help the disabled? Has he forgotten the carers' premium? Admittedly it is only £10, but it is a start and recognition of the valuable work that they do. Are we totally to ignore the Government's record on the abolition of the invalidity trap and the increase in public expenditure on social services of something like 37 per cent. in real terms since 1979? We would be foolish to forget all that.
I regret the cynical manipulation by the Opposition of the elderly and those most at risk. I stress that the decision that had to be made will not be a cheap decision or a soft option. I refer my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to one of the most important parts of the Griffiths report —that which deals with residential care and nursing homes and the difficulties that many people face. A few weeks ago we had a debate about the many people on income support who are out of pocket by £40 a week in residential care and by up to £80 a week for nursing care. That is totally unsatisfactory, but between now and 1993 local authorities will gradually move people from voluntary homes to other homes, resulting in the Department of Social Security picking up an extremely large bill. Unless the Government set their mind to that problem, they will face an even larger bill.
I regret that that decision had to be made, but the justification shows that unfortunately it was absolutely necessary.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: In a couple of minutes, before the Front-Bench spokesmen wind up the debate, I should like to pick up one point which has not been mentioned in the debate. In addition to the Government's concern about the politics of the poll tax, there is a more sinister reason behind the Secretary of State's announcement that the proposals are being deferred.
The Government have caved in to extensive lobbying from the private care sector. Those involved in private care are deeply alarmed that the assessment of individual cases may well result in the redirection of individuals away from private institutional care. They realise that the legislation will well and truly put the brakes on the private care bonanza under the present Government, in which vast numbers of businesses have made a huge amount of money out of people's need for care. That has not been mentioned so far in the debate.
The Secretary of State spoke about new money for local authorities, but we should examine the gross misuse of existing resources through the income support system. We know that vast numbers of people unnecessarily end up in private institutional care without any assessment whatsoever. They are placed there to serve the interests of the private care business. The Government have announced that the legislation will be deferred for two or three years, but it should be stressed that a huge amount of public money will continue to be grossly misused and wasted on institutional care instead of preventive care.
It is important to note that the Association of County Councils' briefing paper states:
It will cost at least as much to continue with the existing system as to move to the new community care regime.
Conservative-controlled councils have also said that. If we look at the matter from a financial point of view, deferral makes no sense. The continuation of open-ended income support payments for institutional care, whether or not people need it, is absolute nonsense and a gross misuse of public money.
Public resources are being misdirected towards private institutional care businesses at the expense of genuine community care which should be directed towards keeping people in their own homes. We should consider the human cost of deferral: by his statement today, the Secretary of State is imprisoning in institutional care people who do not need that care, and he is doing so at huge public cost. Vast numbers of people in institutional care are getting deeper into debt as a result of inadequate income support payments, and that will continue over the next few years.
Has the Secretary of State discussed with the Secretary of State for Social Security what deferral means in terms of public expenditure on social security payments? The Government's actions make no sense. It is clear that there is a need for a Minister for community care—something that the Labour party proposes—who does not consider one narrow interest of one Department, but who considers the roles of all the Departments across the board and also considers the needs of people in the community rather than in institutional care.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In this all too brief debate in Labour party time, a number of interesting and important points have been made. There were many disappointments, the most important of which was the statement which the Secretary of State made earlier and his defence of it during this debate. I also found it disappointing—this is the first community care debate that I can recall in which I must say this—that every Conservative Member found it necessary to support everything that the Secretary of State did. One assumes that someone must have whispered the date of the general election in their ears because there can be little other justification for the Secretary of State's pathetic performance this afternoon.
The Secretary of State reduced the role of Minister into a spectator sport. I hope that Conservative Members will not regard "spectator" as too offensive a word. However, that is a clear description of his role. Instead of fighting for his Department and for the objectives that he set, he has surrendered completely and care in the community in Britain is all the poorer for that.
The Secretary of State would not upset the Hush Puppies of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Indeed, we almost expect the Chief Secretary to enter the Chamber any minute to pat the Secretary of State on the head. He would be one of the few people who would do that. If it was the intention of Conservative Members to improve the Secretary of State's image, they should be aware that his relationship with carers is similar to that between the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the British-German friendship society.
As my colleagues have said, we are dealing with promises that were made clearly by the Government not just in the White Paper or in response to the Griffiths report, which the Secretary of State failed to mention, but as recently as 24 June. The Secretary of State quoted figures like confetti today, but he did not give us his figures, his thinking or his reasons for one of the most spectacular U-turns in the history of social services.
The Secretary of State lambasted the local authorities, but ignored the assistance that they have given to his Department time after time. He referred to the figure of £1·5 billion, but conveniently overlooked several things: the fact that the local authorities' quotation was £1·02 billion; that they were bearing in mind that their estimate of £826 million for community care included £500 million in the social security budget which the Secretary of State had told us until today would be transferred to the local authorities in any case. No one would welcome the gross exaggeration about the local authority figures which the Secretary of State put before the House today.
In this retreat, it is clear that the real reason behind the Government's thinking is that they have created a monster in the shape of the poll tax. There should be no doubt, if the Government's previous rhetoric must be believed, that they have panicked in the face of an approaching general election and the vulnerable in our community, the physically disabled, the elderly, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and their carers will have to pay for that panic.
The Secretary of State said that he has thought about these matters and that he is worried about the community charge. Where did this sudden proposal for phasing-in come from? Why did not it appear in the White Paper or


in earlier statements to the House? Why did the Secretary of State not once in Committee tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that things would be phased in like this or that we would have a timetable? Why did he not once say that the Government were going to disown Sir Roy Griffiths's main recommendation? That is what the Secretary of State's statement today really means.
Conservative Members have said that they welcome the delay and postponement. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) could quote only one local voluntary organisation. I repeat the challenge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley): can the Secretary of State tell us of one voluntary organisation—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Spastics Society, the Care in the Community Scottish group and many others—that would support the delay? The opposite is the case. Voluntary organisations have made their views known to hon. Members and they will be as shocked as Opposition Members at the Secretary of State's announcement this afternoon.
The Secretary of State referred to the need for co-ordination between the national health service and local authorities. In the light of his statement this afternoon, the morale of GPs and that in local authorities, in the health service and social services and social work departments must be at a new low. None of that is good news for co-operation and nothing that we have heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon is good for the patient.
The provisions relating to community care were the only part of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill that anyone wanted. The Government have rushed ahead with the parts that no one wants and now tell us that they are going to delay the implementation of the small features of the Bill that were practicable. The deputy Prime Minister told us that the implementation would take place according to the availability of resources. We have heard that before. We heard it in connection with the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, and if the Government really believe what they say about the consumer, choice and representation and if they are really listening to 6.5 million disabled people and their carers, they would have implemented all the provisions of that Act by now. Who can believe the Government's intentions when they refer to 1993 with regard to community care when the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 has been on the statute book for four years and not all its provisions have been implemented?
Conservative Members accused my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and others of exaggerating the problems of the elderly and of income support and the care gap in private residential homes. If they do not think that there is a problem now, they should listen carefully to the directors of social services. I cannot understand why they think that there is no problem now. We saw on television just the other night some of the problems that already exist. The directors of social services are warning hon. Members that people will increasingly go to their surgeries because of the demographic time bomb

and because of the problem of income support. We know that the elderly are already suffering because of the lack of planning. Conservative Members ignore that at their peril.
This all too brief debate has failed to consider in the detail that we would wish the Government's real strategy for community care. The Prime Minister seems to believe in seminars to study characteristics. Why does not she call a seminar to study the real characteristics of the elderly, the disabled, people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and their carers? Why does not she consider how they can be properly supported in their own homes? The Prime Minister lectures us, today of all days, when we have had such a pathetic response to the problems of community care within our society. Nothing could be more devastating to millions of families than the Government's proposals for community care.
In that spirit, I invite hon. Members to support the motion. I invite the British public in due course not just to dismiss a Secretary of State who can produce such lethargic proposals but to throw out with him the Government who have made such lethargy possible.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Let me make it quite clear that we are not discussing abandoning the policy of community care or of cancelling the policy of community care; we are discussing carrying forward our policies in a practical, sensible and responsible manner. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it only too clear that next April we shall begin with the new provision for the mentally ill. Many hon. Members have referred to the importance of proper community care provision for the mentally ill.
My hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) and the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) referred to the need for the mentally ill to have proper provision made for them when they are established in the community. We are not satisfied that sufficient work on that matter has already been undertaken by local authorities. Local authority expenditure on the mentally ill amounts to about 3 per cent. Nor are we satisfied that the proper provision that the public need to satisfy them as well as those who need care has been arranged. That is why the specific grant allowing spending of £30 million will be established from next April, thus ensuring—this should satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—that no individual will leave a long-term mental hospital without a proper care package and without a named individual being responsible for his or her care as he or she goes out into the community.
Again, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that we intend to make headway with particular assistance for those who suffer from drug or alcohol misuse, thus ensuring that resources are provided for the voluntary sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) referred to the importance of the voluntary sector. It has done excellent pioneering work, and headway will most certainly be made.
Many hon. Members have referred to the importance of carers, and the White Paper and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 particularly refer to the importance of carers. We are funding caring organisations to the tune of about £100,000 this year. They are deeply involved in our consultation on guidance and


the implementation of their important work. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) asked when the guidance will be made available. I give him the clear assurance that the guidance will be available in the autumn. As he will know, we have already issued draft guidance on plans, assessment, inspection and several other matters. We have been consulting widely with local authorities, and that guidance will further inform our plans as we take forward the important work.
Many hon. Members have rightly and properly drawn attention to the very great change that we are seeking to create. We know full well that health authorities and family health service authorities are busy taking on their new responsibilities, thereby putting them in a good position to provide for the health care of their resident populations. District health authorities, family health services authorities and general practitioners, through the new contract, can be active partners in the provision of care in the community.
The Select Committee, in its most recent report, suggested, perhaps with some justification, that the tight timetable means that it will be difficult for local authorities to implement care in the community policies to the standards that we all would want. That allows a further period for local authorities, voluntary organisations and the private sector to implement, to carry forward, to consult and to co-ordinate, so that in April 1993, when they take on the full responsibility—when the social security money is transferred to local authorities, when there is no longer the safety valve of social security payments to provide for those who need residential care—they will be able properly and effectively to undertake their responsibilities.
We in the Department, the social services inspectorate and local authorities have a great deal of work to undertake in the two years. We shall be continuing our training and seminars. We shall be issuing a newsletter on implementation to make sure that we can continue to develop and promote further the momentum of an important policy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the amount of money to be available for training local authorities will increase to about 25 per cent. next year. Training money will be available not only for the elderly and for children but for the mentally ill, the physically disabled and the mentally handicapped. I hope that my hon. Friends will believe that this is not a cancellation or an end to the policy. This is a moment so that we can spend more time actually preparing and ensuring that we make the headway that we should properly and rightly make. It will be hard work. We need to ensure that all the necessary steps are taken.
Several hon. Members referred to the provision of social security payments. As was well said by my right hon. and learned Friend, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has set up a study. There have already been extra resources to the degree of £145 million to provide additional assistance to the likes of Florence Smith and others about whom we heard during the detailed debate earlier in the year.
Care in the community policy will take time to implement fully and effectively. Over the past 10 years—[Interruption.] Over the past 11 years we have seen dramatic advances. We have seen a phenomenal increase in provision in terms of adult training centres for the mentally handicapped–11,000 more places, which is a 25 per cent. increase. We have seen a great increase in the

number of day centre places for the mentally ill–30 per cent. more; another 1,500 places. We have seen a tremendous increase in the number of social workers—I may need to declare a vested interest. There are 5,000 more social workers—an extra 23 per cent. There are an extra 12,000 more home helps—25 per cent. more and, again, many more community psychiatric nurses. We have seen a dramatic increase in personal social services spending to the degree of 47 per cent.
That is the record of a Government who have been investing in the community and developing community care services. We believe in the policy. We now have the legislation on the statute book. We believe that there are urgent tasks to be undertaken. We believe in quality. We believe in safeguarding the interests of the frail and the vulnerable. That is why the complaints procedures and the inspection units will go ahead from next April, together with the other specific grants in areas of special and important need, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.
It is essential that nobody should for a moment forget the challenge that is ahead of us—to ensure that over the next decade we can achieve these community care policies. I urge hon. Members most sincerely and strongly to reject the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 335.

Division No. 301]
[7 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allen, Graham
Coleman, Donald


Alton, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cousins, Jim


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Crowther, Stan


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Margaret
Darling, Alistair


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Doran, Frank


Blair, Tony
Douglas, Dick


Blunkett, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boateng, Paul
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bradley, Keith
Eadie, Alexander


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Faulds, Andrew


Buckley, George J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Callaghan, Jim
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Derek


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Foulkes, George


Carr, Michael
Fraser, John


Cartwright, John
Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Galbraith, Sam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Galloway, George


Clay, Bob
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clelland, David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)






George, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morley, Elliot


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gordon, Mildred
Mullin, Chris


Gould, Bryan
Murphy, Paul


Graham, Thomas
Nellist, Dave


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grocott, Bruce
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Harman, Ms Harriet
Patchett, Terry


Haynes, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Pike, Peter L.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Henderson, Doug
Prescott, John


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Home Robertson, John
Redmond, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Reid, Dr John


Howells, Geraint
Richardson, Jo


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Robertson, George


Hoyle, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Salmond, Alex


Janner, Greville
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Sillars, Jim


Kilfedder, James
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lambie, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lamond, James
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Leighton, Ron
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Litherland, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Livingstone, Ken
Steinberg, Gerry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stott, Roger


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin


McAllion, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McCartney, Ian
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Turner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Vaz, Keith


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


Maclennan, Robert
Walley, Joan


McWilliam, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert N.


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Marek, Dr John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Maxton, John
Wilson, Brian


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Meale, Alan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Michael, Alun
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. John McAllion and


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Ken Eastham.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Sir Thomas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ashby, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert


Amos, Alan
Atkinson, David


Arbuthnot, James
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)





Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Franks, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gardiner, George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Gregory, Conal


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grist, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
Ground, Patrick


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grylls, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hague, William


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, John


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cash, William
Hayward, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holt, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Curry, David
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irving, Sir Charles


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Janman, Tim


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dunn, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Evennett, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knapman, Roger


Fallen, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Favell, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knowles, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knox, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman






Lang, Ian
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Latham, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Lawrence, Ivan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Mudd, David


Lee, John (Pendle)
Neale, Gerrard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Needham, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Nelson, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Neubert, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Lord, Michael
Norris, Steve


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Page, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Paice, James


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Patnick, Irvine


Maclean, David
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Patten, Rt Hon John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Pawsey, James


Madel, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Major, Rt Hon John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Malins, Humfrey
Porter, David (Waveney)


Mans, Keith
Portillo, Michael


Maples, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Marland, Paul
Price, Sir David


Marlow, Tony
Raffan, Keith


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Rathbone, Tim


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Redwood, John


Mates, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Maude, Hon Francis
Rhodes James, Robert


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Mellor, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Miller, Sir Hal
Rost, Peter


Mills, Iain
Rowe, Andrew


Miscampbell, Norman
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ryder, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Moate, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Monro, Sir Hector
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Shaw, David (Dover)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Morrison, Sir Charles
Shelton, Sir William





Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Squire, Robin
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wilshire, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wood, Timothy


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Alastair Goodland and


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Tony Durant.


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House continues to support the Government's policy towards care in the community as set out in the White Paper, Caring for People, as an effective means of securing and delivering services on behalf of those people in need of social care; and endorses the approach towards implementation which the Government had adopted.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill (By Order)

Lords amendments further considered.

Mr. Alex Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I shall take points of order in a moment. Perhaps it would be helpful to remind the House that this debate started on 25 June this year. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was called, started to move the Lords amendments and, most unusually, if he will allow me to say so, was interrupted before he uttered more than half a sentence. That was for a good reason—the Chair had to deal with points of order. So I shall, of course, take points of order. When we have disposed of the points of order the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will have the Floor, if he wishes to catch my eye.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. You will observe that on the Order Paper there is a notice of motion in the name of the Prime Minister. Before we begin what some of us have regarded for over two years as an important debate, it would be helpful if you could clarify the procedure. You will notice that the motion says that
at this day's sitting, the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
That motion has been tabled in the name of the Prime Minister, despite the fact that this is a private Bill. We are worried about this and we seek your assistance.
It would appear that the motion is not what one would call a timetable motion. As First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, could you explain how the Prime Minister has become involved in this private business? We are probably about to have what could be called an endurance test, never mind a timetable motion, in the sense that the debate could continue after 10 o'clock. As this is private business, some of us are puzzled about how the Prime Minister, the Private Bill Office, and the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means have become involved in making the debate some sort of endurance test in which whoever survives the longest will win. I suggest that that is hardly the way to do business in the House. My hon. Friends and, I presume, some Conservative Members would like to know what the procedure is and how it was arrived at before we kick off the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can certainly clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman. As he rightly assessed, the motion is tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. It has nothing to do with the Chairman of Ways and Means. That means that at 10 o'clock, or an appropriate moment after 10 o'clock, the Whip will move the motion if he so desires. The House will come to a decision on that forthwith. If it decides in favour of the motion, the debate will be allowed to continue until any hour. I hope that I have clarified the procedure for the whole House. It is perfectly normal procedure, to which we are well accustomed in the House.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that in several

debates we discussed whether this is a hybrid Bill. The Chair has always ruled that it is not, and that it has proceeded in the correct manner. Will you suspend the House to enable your good self to have a look at "Erskine May" for guidance? It states that you have the power to rule that it is a hybrid Bill. As there is ample evidence of Government involvement in the Bill, I ask you to consult the Clerk and "Erskine May" and to rule that it is a hybrid Bill. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, suspended the House for 10 minutes, I could furnish that evidence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the whole House, will recall that that matter has been raised on a number of occasions during the Bill's passage, and there have been several rulings stating that the Bill is not hybrid, and is perfectly in order. I have nothing to add to the numerous rulings that have been given in the past.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I brought two matters to the Speaker's attention earlier today and said that, if a ruling had not been given before 7 pm, I would raise them again at the commencement of this business. My first point of order involves clause 3 and their Lordships' amendments relating to it. I submitted papers showing that the Bill's drafting, as subject to the Lords amendments, was wrong and that it would be a simple matter involving the loss of no more than six months for the Bill to return to the House of Lords for that defect to be put right.
My second point of order arose under clause 18, and was briefly drawn to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during our earlier discussions—the EC directive 85/337. In view of the almost certain challenge, which cannot possibly be in the interests of the Bill's promoter, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether there are proper channels within private Bill procedures whereby a roll-over could be agreed so that the Bill would comply with the directive. That procedure was confirmed by the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure on 20 July 1988. That review was reaffirmed by the then Leader of the House on 20 April last year.
Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule on those two points of order?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does it relate to the same point?

Mr. Skinner: Yes. Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may help you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This matter has been to the Speaker's Counsel. What happened, in a nutshell, was that the Bill was not amended in this House and went to the House of Lords. A series of amendments was passed in the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the House of Lords which we shall debate later today. The amendment to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) referred was to change "85" to "85E". That sounds insignificant to the layman and hon. Members, but it involves the compulsory purchase of people's property. The reference "85E" relates to one of the mining codes used in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923. The Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, which was used for the


Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, contains no such thing as "85E". It contains sections from 77 to 85, but no others.
In the other place, one of the advisers decided to make the Bill workable by using the 1923 Act, which includes sections 77 to 85, and 78A, 79A, 79B and 85A to E. He has added them on, but used the wrong Act. The result is that representations have been made to Speaker's Counsel. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may know him, but I have not met him before.
I have correspondence in which Speaker's Counsel says that there is an argument about the Bill. He uses words—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am listening with interest to what he says, but I am sure that he realises that it would be inappropriate to attempt to quote an alleged view of an official of the House.

Mr. Skinner: It is not alleged: I am going to read it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that it would be unfair to do that.

Mr. Skinner: It is in the public domain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. Everything that he and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) have said so far will be perfectly in order in the debates on Lords amendments, but they are not matters for the Chair or points of order for me.

Mr. Skinner: Let me get this straight. We are talking about hon. Members in the House being gagged and stopped from using information which if it is not declared to the public at large will result in people losing their property rights. The matter arises from legal representations that have been made by British Coal, and others with an interest in the matter, obtaining rights to excavate minerals. Where the Bill refers to "section 78" of the 1845 Act, as amended by the 1923 Act, the wrong Act has been used, and representations have been made about that.
I shall quote exactly what Speaker's Counsel has said because it is germane to what we shall discuss—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This matter will be perfectly legitimate when we debate the Lords amendments. The hon. Gentleman has risen on a point of order, and I am not clear what the point of order for the Chair is.

Mr. Skinner: It is clear: are we going to pass an Act here that has been amended at a late stage, about which Speaker's Counsel declares, in answer to Paul Thompson:
If it were possible at this stage to make more precise the drafting of that part of clause 3(2)(b) I should not hesitate to recommend that it be done.
It can be done—we have merely to send the Bill back to the House of Lords—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair during the debate, he can make that point, but it is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order, one of which continues one aspect of the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If we did not make a decision about the issue raised by my

hon. Friend, in the knowledge that the Bill is defective, we should be doing Parliament and the law a profound disservice. Occasionally, Parliament makes mistakes in legislation, but they are invariably found after a Bill has become law. For Parliament deliberately to approve a statute in the knowledge that it is defective would be a precedent that I hope no hon. Member would support. I hope that that point can be considered in the next few minutes before we embark on the debate on the amendments, when the pass may have been sold.
I shall make my second point of order briefly and, I hope, allow people time to consider the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. It refers to clause 3(1) and clause 3(2)(b), which both contain the words "the railway". There may be an error, if not in the first "the", in the second "the", which appears in clause 3(2)(b). It seems that we are deeming something to be "the railway" when we should deem it to be "a railway". That point is not as substantial as the major point of my hon. Friend, but it suggests another small reason why their Lordships should reconsider the issue. If their Lordships were given that opportunity, it might allow a proper environmental assessment to be carried out that would be consistent with the policies of both Government and Opposition, and of Europe, to which the Government and the Opposition owe some obligation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Of course, I shall take points of order, but I repeat that we are already well launched into the debate. It would be better if we debated matters relating to the amendments after we have heard from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, rather than discussing them as points of order. They are perfectly legitimate issues to raise in the debate on the Lords amendments, when we get to it.

Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand your position and I certainly would not want to challenge it, but a defective amendment has been made in another place which does not legally fit the statute that we are attempting to pass. That would never have happened if amendments to the Bill had been proposed in this place, as hon. Members tabling amendments would have been advised by the Clerks, who do a first class job, on whether to proceed. It seems extraordinary that we are expected to accept a defective amendment, which, if it is carried, will mean defective legislation emerging from this House, which is supposed to legislate for the country—without any redress except a vote against other amendments which may be perfectly in order. That is an incredible thing for hon. Members to be asked to do. Under the circumstances, I ask that the sitting be suspended until you can be advised whether it is correct for us to go ahead and deliberately pass defective legislation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the other points of order are on the same matter, it might be tidier if I took them all together.

Mr. John Cummings: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you arrange to bring


either the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General to the House to give an appraisal of the points made by my hon. Friends tonight?

Mr. Michael Welsh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are the amendments in order or are they defective?

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point of order?

Mr. Cryer: No, it is different.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that I can add on these points of order to what I have already said. All these matters can be raised in the debate, as hon. Members know. I was doubtful whether the debate on the amendments would be so wide-ranging. It is evident to me that these points of order are legitimate points to make in the debate. The House will recall that when we last discussed the matter there was a clear ruling from the Chair that, if the House so desired, it would be possible to vote separately on each Lords amendment. I hope that that is of some assistance to the House.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ever since the Bill came to the House there has been an awful smell. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said and now the stink is even worse. There has been interference and support from the Government, from the Prime Minister down. I remember several occasions when Ministers were whipped in here to vote for a private Bill. It is a shocking state of affairs, and you should listen seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to what hon. Members on both sides of the House are saying about whether it is right, proper and within the rules to debate the Bill before these matters are sorted out.
It is obvious that there is a problem with the Lords amendments and that is our argument. The smell in the House stinks something awful, and we want it cleared up. We are not happy with what is happening. I am not challenging your ruling, but at the same time I do not accept it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that I can add to what I have already said. The sooner that we get on to the debate, the more likely it is that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), if he catches the eye of the Chair, will be able to develop his argument.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will appreciate that the first Lords amendment alters clause 3 and substitutes 85E for 85. It refers to the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.
On a previous occasion, when we debated the Ade1phi Estate Bill, a question arose about old Acts being made available. Subsequent to that discussion in the House, when it was reasonably pointed out that old Acts registered and stored in the Library are delicate and should be handled with great care, not fumbled about on the Benches here, the promoters of the Bill provided an extract from the relevant legislation.
I have been to the Vote Office and no extracts of the 1845 Act have been made available. There is a copy of the

Act in the Library, and it is old and delicate. We should take care of such documents and call upon the promoters to provide adequate information.
Moreover, Standing Order No. 34 on private business states:
In the case of a railway, tramsway or tramroad bill and of a bill relating to any waterway, road, bridge, tunnel, ferry, harbour, dock or pier, a copy of the deposited plan, section and book of reference (if any)
should be provided. Perhaps "book or reference" has a defined meaning relating to some specific engineering detail, but we believe that under Standing Order No. 34 a book of reference must perforce relate to the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, because that is a point of reference for the amendments. Therefore, we should not proceed unless and until the promoters are prepared to provide extracts which I think they should do as a matter of course for every private Bill when we have to refer to ancient Acts. If they do not, we shall be running to the Library; the staff will let the Acts out with great reluctance and it is probable that damage will occur to priceless documents. It would be a good precedent to follow, and I suspect that it would broaden Standing Order No. 34 for private business, which would mean that promoters will be required to provide the information and that "book of reference" will include previous Acts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. He made a similar point of order on 25 June, which has given me the opportunity to look into it. He has largely answered his own point. He said that the onus should be on the promoters. That may be an argument on which hon. Members have strong views. It is not a matter for the Chair. It is the job of the House to ensure that the Bill and the amendments to it are available in the Vote Office. That is in accordance with our usual practice, and the Bill and the amendments are so available.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that my constituency is probably more affected by this Bill than any other? Yet for two long years I have tried to make a speech on the Bill and have never once been called. I understand the enthusiasm of some of my hon. Friends who have worked in the industry, but I ask you not to accept a closure motion after two hours when all that we have had have been points of order, and when some of us have been trying to make speeches, have voted on every occasion but have never been lucky enough to catch your eye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as that is an exceedingly helpful point of order. Given his long experience, long service and the esteem in which he is held by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I hope that his hon. Friends will now desist from their points of order so that I can call the hon. Gentleman to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that there has been considerable concern about motives and about Government involvement in the Bill. The House is now being told that the Bill is acknowledged to be technically defective by Mr. Knorpel, Counsel to the Speaker. He acknowledged that, at this stage, it can be put right only in the House of Lords.
Would you consider suspending the sitting so that Counsel to Mr. Speaker can be consulted on whether the defective amendments should be rejected to give the House of Lords the opportunity to make them technically correct?
Given the deep-felt anxiety of the Opposition and people who are affected by this proposition, there is a danger that the Officers of the House and Counsel to Mr. Speaker will eventually be seen as parties to a Government fiddle. That is damaging and dangerous to the reputation of Officers of the House and to the House as a whole. I should be grateful if you would seriously consider suspending the sitting so that Counsel to Mr. Speaker can be consulted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the House will not drag Counsel to Mr. Speaker—an official of the House—into the debate. We are dealing with Lords amendments only. If hon. Members feel that they can make remarks in order on the Lords amendments, so be it. I hope that we shall quickly proceed to discuss those amendments.

Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not a matter of dragging the reputation of Counsel to Mr. Speaker before the House. He has been asked to advise and he has advised, in writing, that the Bill is defective and that the House cannot put right those defects. The House of Commons produces enough defective legislation unknowingly, and it would be preposterous to produce it knowingly, given the view of Counsel to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member feels that way, the sooner we get on to the Lords amendments so that these matters can be discussed, the better.

Mr. Andy Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) to cast aspersions on the voting record of hon. Members on the Bill? The Bill would have been killed off on Second Reading if more than 49 Labour Members had stayed to vote.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the points of order that hon. Members wish to raise, but I hope that I have not already dealt with them. I remind hon. Members of the heartfelt plea of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) to have an opportunity to speak in the debate.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you consider suspending the sitting until we get an assurance from the Government? In the latter part of the sittings of the Committee on the Bill, its Chairman, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), said:
Before the Committee came to make a formal decision on, first, the amendment proposed by the British Coal Corporation and, secondly, the Preamble itself, we agreed that if the bill were allowed to proceed, this would be subject to conditions … which … were agreed to unanimously.
One such condition was that the Bill's promoters should leave figures in the Library, to be checked from time to time. The Committee agreed:
that the issues raised before it were sufficiently important that they justified making this Special Report to the House, to draw the attention of … the Government to what we believe would be the potentially disastrous effects of large-scale coal

imports. In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary, in the overall national interest, to protect the indigenous coal-mining industry.
The Committee made a special report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My difficulty is that the hon. Member is not putting a point of order to the Chair. He is putting a point which could be legitimate and in order when we come to the Lords amendments. I have not yet heard a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Lofthouse: My point of order for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that you should consider suspending the sitting until the Government have given the assurance demanded by the Committee. At no time has that assurance been given. The Lords amendments should not be debated until the Government have given the assurance that the Committee demanded in its special report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member makes my point for me. If we debate the Lords amendments, we may get answers to these points, which are legitimate matters to raise in the debate on the Lords amendments.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is not an issue that can be dealt with by coming to the substance of the Bill and voting. My hon. Friend drew attention to the special responsibility of Mr. Speaker for private legislation. As the House knows, private legislation goes through a different procedure. It must be examined by Mr. Speaker, who gives his certificate, and for that purpose he is advised by his Counsel. My hon. Friend said that the House should have available to it the opinion of Counsel to Mr. Speaker—my hon. Friend has read it, so it is obviously not a confidential document.
As I understand it, when the Bill was introduced, Mr. Speaker gave his decision, which had to be accepted. The Bill then went to the House of Lords which has made amendments. Counsel to Mr. Speaker is dissatisfied, on legal grounds, with the formulation of the amendments. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you act for Mr. Speaker in his absence by chairing the House, but only Mr. Speaker can deal with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. Counsel to Mr. Speaker said that the Bill had come back from the Lords technically defective. We may have different views about the merits of the Bill, but that is a matter for debate. In those circumstances, only Mr. Speaker can rule on the extent to which he takes in to account the views of Counsel, who has warned the House that the Bill is defective, since when Mr. Speaker has not given his judgment on the matter. The issue is the juridical role of the Speaker.
The problem cannot be disposed of simply by voting for or against leaving out section 85 and inserting section 85E. There is a wholly reasonable proposal on how to proceed, and I have known this to happen during my years here. When a matter of substance arises, Mr. Speaker should be invited to give it his attention, in which case consideration of the Bill is postponed. I personally do not think that the debate on this Bill could be postponed for 10 minutes or so while the matter was considered. Mr. Speaker would have to give his considered attention, with the advice of the Clerks, to the advice that he had received from his


Counsel. If Mr. Speaker believed that his Counsel had identified a defect in a Bill that had come from another place, he would have to make a new ruling.
These are not political points. They are matters for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am inviting you, with great respect, to say that the points made have sufficient substance to merit the matter being referred to Mr. Speaker and that further consideration of the Bill should be deferred until that has been done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the right hon. Member has raised the issue in that manner, because I can readily clarify it. Mr. Speaker has, of course, considered the Lords amendments with considerable care. I assure the House that he is satisfied that there is nothing out of order in them; the Lords amendments which are on the amendment paper for discussion this evening are in order.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful for that assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is the first time that we have heard it. Surely if Mr. Speaker disagrees with his Counsel, which he is perfectly entitled to do, the House is entitled to know the reasons for that disagreement. Surely, in the event of such recommendations by his Counsel, Mr. Speaker would be required to issue a new certificate to the effect that the Bill remains a private one within the provisions of the Standing Orders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That depends on the interpretation of the words and, of course, Mr. Speaker is given advice on these matters. He is quite clear that our proceedings are in order and that the Lords amendments should be considered. That is plain and there is nothing further that I can add. We have had a good run on points of order. I have allowed every hon. Member who rose at the start of them to raise his point of order and I have dealt with them. To echo the point of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, it would be much more sensible to get on with the debate in which we may get some enlightenment on these points.

Mr. Eric Illsley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to know whether the Bill as it stands and the amendments should be sent back to the Committee. You will recall that originally the Bill came to the House together with the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. Both Bills were to be considered together but they were eventually separated. Both went into Committee but only the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was continued. I understand that the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill was dropped because of the poor quality of drafting. It appears that the technical drafting in this Bill is also poor. Will you rule whether the Bill should be referred back to the Committee so that it can consider whether the Bill should be dropped?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not possible to move back. We are dealing with Lords amendments and the sooner we get on with them the better.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have ruled that the matters that have been raised in points of order can be discussed during the debate on the amendments. You told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that clauses 77 to 85 of the Railways Clauses

Consolidation Act 1845, which are matters for dispute, left it open to us to discuss whether the original 1845 Act was being referred to or whether it was that Act as subsequently amended. The additions are much wider in the first case than in the second.
I raised a point of order on 25 June which is reported at column 83 of the Official Report. I asked whether we would take the amendments one by one, not just in terms of votes but in terms of their being moved and dealt with. I was told that it would be appropriate to raise that matter later. It would be appropriate for us now to discuss the amendments separately, because your earlier ruling to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover showed that a wide debate may be possible on the first amendment, or at least on the first two, applying to these ports.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to what I have already said to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other hon. Members. If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard for 25 June he will see that the House decided when we started the debate that all the Lords amendments would be taken together. That is the normal procedure for Lords amendments to private Bills. However, the Chair said that separate Divisions on the amendments would be permitted. There is nothing further that I can add. The ruling was made clear on 25 June and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), with his long experience in the House, will remember how helpful he was in that regard.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since then we have had a range of points of order which revealed new problems, and we have had a ruling which reveals that discussions in connection with amendments Nos. 1 and 2 can be wide. Because of those changed circumstances, is not it appropriate to readjust the position because we have had barely half a sentence from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) who moved the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are rapidly approaching the time when we can have another half a sentence from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. We have had a good run on these points of order. It is my job to protect not only this debate but the other business before the House.

Clause 3

Question accordingly agreed to.

INCORPORATION OF GENERAL ENACTMENTS

Lords amendment: In page 3, line 10, leave out '85' and insert '85E'.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25 June], That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Michael Brown: The House will recall that I moved the amendment on 25 June. The purpose of clause 3 is to apply to the work sought to be constructed the provisions of two clauses Acts that were enacted in the 19th century. Those Acts contain model clauses that could be incorporated into private Bills, thereby avoiding the need to set out such provisions in full in individual private Acts.
One of the motives for that was to reduce the length of private Acts with consequent savings in time and money,


not only for the promoters of private Bills but for Parliament, which no longer had to take time to study identical clauses time after time.
I listened carefully to the points of order. For many years it has been the practice of Associated British Ports to incorporate inter alia sections 77 to 85E of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Section 77 provides that when buying land for the carrying out of works, promoters such as Associated British Ports are not entitled to the minerals except those that it is necessary to remove for the construction of the works. The company may not work minerals unless they are expressly purchased in addition to the land.
Hon. Members have spoken about sections 78 to 85E, which is headed "Minerals under railways". Those sections contain a code under which ABP would be entitled to prevent the owners of any minerals lying under or near the works from endangering the stability of the works by extracting any such minerals. Should Associated British Ports exercise that right, the code provides for it to compensate mine and royalty owners who are affected. That code was inserted in the 1845 Act by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923, to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred in his point of order. That replaced a more restrictive code set out in sections 78 to 85 of the 1845 Act as originally enacted. It would still be possible to incorporate the previous code but ABP has never done so.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brown: My next sentence may help my hon. Friend.
When the Bill was drafted, the letter E was not included, but it is the view of the House of Lords, which the promoters are prepared to accept, that it should be added, otherwise the latter part of the code in sections 85A to 85E inclusive would be omitted and those sections, which allow for variation of the code by agreement and which contain various drafting and procedural provisions, are necessary to facilitate implementation of the code. They also confer valuable protection on mine owners, in particular a release from all common law obligations for support for the land on which the works stand.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Unless I have defective hearing, I have not heard my hon. Friend utter the word railway. He has studiously avoided using the word, although everything that he has said has referred to railways. Will he explain to the House how on earth by any stretch of the imagination the port can be described as a railway, which is what is dealt with in the clause?

Mr. Brown: If what my hon. Friend says is the case, every Act of Parliament that has been enacted with the provision that we are seeking to write into the Bill by way of the Lords amendment is similarly defective. I can reassure my hon. Friend. The promoters of the Bill and their parliamentary agents advise me that section 15 of the 1923 Act referred to railway companies because it was amending a railway code. I do not think that my hon. Friend's observation has anything to do with the Lords amendment.
There is little doubt on the matter among those who have advised Mr. Speaker—and there have been references

to Speaker's Counsel. I have a copy of the letter to which the hon. Member for Bolsover referred. The hon. Gentleman did not cite the following sentence:
I cannot, however, imagine that a court or arbitrator, reading its provisions and those affecting 78 to 85 together, would have any difficulty in perceiving and giving effect to its intentions.

8 pm

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman cited legislation and codes that were originally drawn up for railway matters, which was common in the 19th century when railways were being built. He then moved on to the question of mineral rights. The railway legislation was passed before the rights to the ownership of coal were nationalised by the Conservative Government during the war. Long before the pits were nationalised, the coal royalties were taken over by the Government. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is inviting the House to agree to a broader interpretation than even the promoters wanted, by adding 85E in such a way as to give Associated British Ports the right compulsorily to take over the mineral rights to any coal that is discovered under its workings.
Those coal royalties belong to the Government of the day, so that raises, once again, the question whether it is a hybrid Bill—but I shall not pursue that now. On what basis does the hon. Gentleman justify the Lords proposal? Since the legislation that he cited came into force, the control of the rights to coal found under the earth passed to the Government of the day, and that has been the positon for more than 50 years.

Mr. Brown: I do not think that much of what the right hon. Gentleman said is relevant. I am introducing the amendments because the other place requested that they be made. When the Bill first came before the House, it was not felt that the amendments were necessary. However, I have a duty to lay the Lords amendments before the House. It is for the House to accept or reject them. The House is free to reject them for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman.
As the Lords Chairman and his colleagues have requested that the promoters insert the amendments in the Bill, I and the promoters felt that it was only right to place them before the House. However, the House is free not to accept them—

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Brown: I must make progress and I want to deal—

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I earlier raised a point of order about the promoters not providing information, and you rightly said that it was a matter for the promoters because our Standing Orders are defective in that respect. Serious points have been raised, and it is outside the conventions of the House for the hon. Member who represents the promoters not even to give an explanation of why the promoters have so lamentably failed to make information readily available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If we allow the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) to continue, the hopes nourished by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may well be satisfied.

Mr. Brown: Other minor and technical amendments need to be made, again at the request of the other place.


They equity relate to clause 18. Since the Bill was deposited in November 1987, the general law has been changed by a new general development order, the order of 1987 having been replaced by that of 1988. It will be appreciated that references to a piece of general legislation that has now been revoked would be incorrect when replacement legislation is in force.
The amendments are beneficial to the opponents of the Bill. They constitute a minor piece of technical drafting relating to clause 18. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Ashton: I remind the House that this is a transport Bill as well as a coal Bill. I intend to confine my remarks to the transport aspect because, over many months, my hon. Friends have dealt in great detail with the important coal aspects. They have done a magnificent job in pointing out the effects on the economy in areas such as my constituency.
Bassetlaw has three power stations—Cottam, West Burton and High Marnham. There should have been a fourth—West Burton B. It has four pits—Manton, Harworth, Welbeck and Bevercotes. The Bill will have a devastating effect on my constituency. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has never told the House what will happen to the coal after it is unloaded at the port. He has never explained how thousands of tonnes of coal per day will get to the power stations in my constituency.
Those power stations were first planned in 1947 after a very bad winter, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I are probably old enough to remember. Manny Shinwell was the fuel Minister at the time, and he was followed by Harold Wilson. A proper plan was laid down, with a railway line rather like a roundabout running through a string of 20 different pits, 24 hours a day, 360 days of the year. The coal was fed into different wagons from a hopper and it was then trundled along through the surrounding fields. One reason why the power stations were sited in my constituency was the River Trent and the surrounding flat countryside.
That was a first-class example of planning by a Labour Government—something that the nation has not enjoyed since. It was highly efficient and effective, despite what was said at the time about the much-maligned nationalised industries. The hon. Gentleman wants to put in its place an unplanned, private enterprise scheme that is designed to suck in cheap coal from South Africa, Bolivia, China, Colombia or Poland, simply to make a massive profit without worrying about the environment or the consequences on our constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman has not told his constituents what will happen when 20,000 tonnes of coal a day must be offloaded at Immingham, so I shall tell them. The hon. Gentleman has not thought out that problem. It means 500 lorries a day, each weighing about 38 tonnes, carrying the 20,000 tonnes of coal needed to run just the power stations in my constituency. Some 500 lorries will have to leave Immingham right around the clock. People living on that lorry route will find that the value of their houses will fall by half, and they should blame the hon. Gentleman for that when they vote at the next general election.

Mr. Michael Brown: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been to Immingham recently. The docks

are connected to the A180, which is a massive dual carriageway provided by the Department of Transport. I do not think that there are any houses near it. The lorries will go straight from the docks on to the A180, a road that I opened in 1983.

Mr. Ashton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because it gives me the opportunity to tell him that lorry drivers please themselves. I have experienced that with the A1 in my constituency. A bypass was built to protect the very pretty village of Blyth, which used to win the competition for the best kept village in Nottinghamshire. What happened? One thousand three hundred lorries a day still go through that village every time that the traffic piles up. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is not listening, but I wish that he would. He will find that the 500 lorries travelling to and from the port will also pile up as a result of an accident or some other form of blockage on the motorway.
When that happens, the drivers will take a short cut. They are all on bonuses and have to complete two or three trips a day. They will take short cuts through villages, calling in at the local pub for their sandwiches or for a packet of fags. They will park at night two miles outside the docks because they have arrived too early and their load is not ready to be collected until 7 o'clock in the morning. Drivers will say, "We'll nip into Immingham, have a pint, park the lorry in the street, and sleep in the back." Then they will start their lorries up at four in the morning under Mrs. Brown's window so that they can be at the front of the queue at the docks.
Any right hon. or hon. Member who represents a coal mining constituency can tell the hon. Gentleman about the complaints that are received from people living near the coal mines. After moving into a modern house, they discover that the klaxon horns sound at 1 o'clock in the morning and that they can hear the Tannoys. They can also hear the warning horns fitted to lorries that sound whenever they reverse, which is done for safety reasons. Our constituents lose sleep all the time, and they protested when it was suggested that pits would go on to seven-day working. They are continually having their environment destroyed. If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes imagines that there will be a merry-go-round of lorries coming down the motorway and going straight to the power stations, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. I hope that his constituents will ask him serious, probing questions about the Bill's effects on Immingham.
I shall tell the hon. Gentleman more about the areas on my patch. I mentioned Blyth, and Cuckney is another. Such villages have no pavements or street lamps. One woman pushing a pram had to dive into a hedge when a lorry came thundering round the corner.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the noise under Mrs. Brown's window and the sound made by reversing trucks, but I fail to relate them to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman is making a wonderful Second Reading speech, but perhaps we may have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how far one is allowed to wander off the subject of the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was beginning to grow just a little anxious myself. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made the point that he was unable to speak at


earlier stages of the Bill, and as a consequence I have allowed him to make a fairly long preamble. However, I am sure that he will now relate his remarks directly to the amendments.

Mr. Ashton: The Bill makes reference to railways, and I am making the point that no railway is attached to the proposed port. One young woman and her baby were killed in my constituency when they were crushed by a lorry against a wall. Even a horse being led down a lane was killed by a lorry. That is the kind of situation that arises when no railway is available. The Bill is a total planning shambles. It is the equivalent of saying that if all the tube stations in London were closed down and everyone could ride free on the buses, that would be fine. It would not. The city could not function. The same applies to the port.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes talks about lorries coming off the A180, but it does not lead to the power stations, which are in a remote rural area near the River Trent. The road that serves them is probably no wider than the gap between the two Front Benches. Lorries have to travel through villages in my constituency such as Walkington, Beckingham and Misterton. During the miners' strike, when there were problems with the railways and freight had to go on the roads, millions of pounds worth of damage was done because the roads were not designed to carry that amount of weight.
Nottinghamshire county council ran into serious trouble. Because of the poll tax—I am not digressing, but this is an important point—that county council no longer receives rates from the power stations because the Government get that money instead. My constituents have to put up with all the environmental problems caused by lorries, acid rain, steam, coal and noise. They receive no compensation in the form of a rebate on their poll tax as they did with the rates. The Bill will impose a further monstrous 500 lorries a day, carrying 20,000 tonnes of coal, pouring through constituencies.
8.15 pm
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has thought through the Bill and its impact on the environment of his constituency. Three months before the previous election, probably to save the seat of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—he may laugh now —the Government promised another power station, West Burton B. We all supported it because building and running it would have created thousands of jobs. I accepted that it would worsen the environment in my constituency, but some of my hon. Friends have suffered worse pit closures even than I have and grievous unemployment, so we were happy to accept the building of that new power station. We do not object to industrial development. I might even say that imported coal could help the building of a new power station. Even so, my constituents want to retain the existing coal mines and power stations, and not run the power stations on foreign coal.
The amendments give the promoters of the Bill the power to do virtually anything that they like. Once they have created the project for massive profit, there will be no cost to them for the wear and tear on the roads, or for the loss of value by half of houses on the route, even in Immingham. Nor will they have to meet the miners' redundancy pay or suffer through the loss of rate rebates.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is conning his own constituents into supporting the Bill. I shall not make the allegation that the hon. Gentleman is getting paid because if he was getting paid, I am sure that he would stand up and tell the House. He has not done so, but if it is found out later that he is getting paid, that will be a contempt of the House and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take the appropriate action.
I shall make one promise to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. There is no way that the port can be built before the next general election. If the promoters sitting in the Box watching us have spent money on anything except drawings, they have been very foolish. The next Labour Government will stop the project. If a Labour Government are returned at the next general election, the port will not be built. We may have to pay compensation for the drawings and planning that the promoters have already completed—but if they mix one bag of cement ready to start work on constructing the port, they are idiots. The port will not go ahead. No one is in favour of it—neither Conservative Members who know the Nottinghamshire area nor my own right hon. and hon. Friends. The project is designed only to make a massive profit for friends of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, and his constituents will decide that for themselves at the next general election.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: In order to understand our objections to the Bill and to the Lords amendments, I will precis the contents of clause 3. Subsection (1) states that the Act will incorporate

"(a) sections 30 to 44 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 …
(b) sections 77 to 85 of that Act".

and:
For the purposes of the said sections 30 to 44 of the Act of 1845, as so incorporated"—
and I tried to make this point clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—
the works shall be deemed to be a railway and, for the purpose of section 78 of the said Act of 1845 (as amended by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 in so Far as it relates to the works".
Clause 3 and the Lords amendments try to write into the Bill the 1845 Act as amended by the 1923 legislation—or at least that is what the Lords think they have done. That is why I raised a point of order earlier.
The clause and the amendments seek to establish what mining code will apply and whether it has been properly chosen. In doing so, ABP assumes that it is a railway company. I submit that ABP is patently not a railway company and that the works that it intends to carry out are not railway works. However, the amendments that we are asked to approve deem them to be railway works. If we accepted the amendments, we should assume that their Lordships made the right decision in adopting the 1923 code. The courts are likely to take a different view.
It is odd, therefore, that the House should be debating the Bill. I believe that the promoters are storing up trouble for themselves. If they were to be challenged in the courts, they would be faced with enormous financial costs. It would take only six months to send the Bill back to the other place to get it right. There would still be arguments about whether it was right, but at least if it left this place in six months time as an Act of Parliament it would go out


clean. By their obstinacy the promoters are storing up for themselves many difficulties that they could avoid if they were willing to wait for six months.
Under the 1845 Act there are two mining codes—the original code and the one that was revised in 1923. I understand that if a private Bill incorporates sections 77 to 85 of the 1845 Act it is the original code that is incorporated, unless either the promoters are a railway company—in which case the 1923 Act automatically applies—or they draft the Bill in such a special way as to make it clear that they have chosen to incorporate, for good reasons or bad, the 1923 code.
Reference was made earlier to counsel's opinion. We believe that the drafting of the Bill is wrong. The Lords amendments undoubtedly seek to demonstrate the promoters' intention to incorporate the 1923 code rather than the original 1845 code, since they introduced clause 85E which is found only in the later version. When the Bill left this place it was clear that the promoters assumed that the original code would apply. The Lords amendments are, therefore, incompatible with the original intention of this House. Since they are incompatible, we believe that they make clause 3, as amended, unworkable.
Before the Bill left the Commons it incorporated sections 77 to 85 of the old Act. It provided that the works were to be deemed a railway, that there should be an area of protection and that the area of protection should be various distances in metres. Of the four different provisions, the first two are incorporated in the original code. That is simply because of the references to sections 77 to 85 of the 1845 Act. If ABP was really a railway company—again I say that it is not—reference to the 1923 code would be automatic and there would be no problem. However, as I submit that ABP is not a railway company, there is confusion—hence the justification of the points of order earlier.
The third provision uses the expression "area of protection". That expression is appropriate only in the context of the 1923 code. The fourth provision does not prescribe an area of protection. It prescribes various distances in metres. That brings us back to the 1845 code in which the equivalent of an area of protection was defined simply by reference to the distance from a railway—whether it be 40 yards, or a special distance, as laid down in whatever Bill was before Parliament at the time.
Whatever the promoters' objectives may be, at best, having read all the papers that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has struggled through today, as have I, save only their anxiety to get the Bill, defective or otherwise, on to the statute book, it is difficult to know quite what they are trying to achieve.
When the Bill left the Commons it was clearly unsatisfactory but, strangely enough, I am advised that, in the form that it left the Commons, it was workable because the assumption was that the original 1845 code would apply and that the reference to the 1923 Act was simply an error. If, however, the drafting intended to incorporate the new code, the provision is unworkable because the area of protection is defined by distances. That is unworkable in the context of the development of a port on the Humber.
There are good grounds, therefore, for doing the promoters a favour and rejecting the Lords amendments. Rejection would give them time to look at the matter

again. Thereby we might save the port authority a lot of money. We ought to provide the House of Lords with an opportunity to proffer alternative amendments to correct the drafting of clause 3, on the basis of either the old code or the new. If the Lords amendments are accepted, the inevitable consequence will be that the Bill will be passed with clause 3 in an unsatisfactory and defective form.
The Lords amendments to clause 18 effectively read part II and schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1988 into the Bill. If that were strictly a planning matter, the road restrictions would apply. Those are the road restrictions that the hon. and very patient Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred to in his speech. By choosing the route of a ports Bill, all the constraints to which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred will be circumvented unless we write constraints into the Bill. Those constraints are missing. Again, that is why we have raised so many points of order.
In opposing the amendments, I say to the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who may have an opportunity, with the leave of the House, to speak again, that that will not block the development at Immingham. I am given to understand that the promoters do not need the Bill in its present form. I am told that the promoters could still take the route of an order under the Harbours Act and that they might succeed in about a year. That might be cheaper than the route they have chosen to go down tonight.
The clause was out of date when it left this place many months ago. This is planning permission by means of a private Bill. Many would suggest that that, too, is out of date. The promoters' amendment seeks to correct an imperfection in the planning laws. We submit that they should have gone further by also correcting the anomaly of obtaining, through the Bill, planning permission in advance without an environmental assessment, having been undertaken. Therefore, we should defer this stage of the Bill, pending receipt of an environmental assessment, or at least we should make deemed planning permission conditional upon and subject to an environmental assessment. That is the minimum duty that we owe to everyone in the region who may be affected.
The EEC directive, referred to in an earlier debate by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—directive 85/337—requires environmental impact assessments for trading ports unless a member state Government have adopted certain alternative exemption procedures. That is not the case with this Bill. The Bill will not mean that the project is exempted from the requirements of the assessment. That does not seem to have been taken on board by the promoters. That would be the case only where an environmental impact assessment is built into the Bill. The directive has effect in the United Kingdom and, as such, could be used by an adversely affected party to challenge in the English courts the legality of the authorisation of the project under this Bill.
8.30 pm
Those who would immediately have cause to object would include Nottinghamshire county council, which had many problems a few years ago with coal lorries on its minor roads, the coalfield communities in Yorkshire and, dare I say it, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. Immediately the Bill is given Royal Assent a whole range of people will have grounds for taking the ports authority to the courts. I am


advised that the action would be for judicial review of the Act or a declaration that the consents contained in the Act were invalid, being in contravention of Community law. That is not a route I would recommend the promoters to take.
There is a risk of infringement proceedings under article 169 of the EEC treaty which requires a member state to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that before consent is given projects likely to have significant effect on the environment by virtue, among other things, of their nature, size and location are made subject to assessment with regard to their effects. The risk is obvious.
With those comments on the clauses and the amendments to them, I believe that there are good grounds for rejecting them all.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is aware of the consequences of the Bill. It is sad that only a handful of Conservative Members were present to listen to and digest what he had to say. If there were any justice in this place, the Bill would be thrown out. We could say that on political grounds every day of the week and we would be right. On this occasion we are not talking about a political issue although the Bill does have political overtones. I will try to put in layman's language the points expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South.
A Bill went unamended from the House of Commons to the House of Lords mainly because the Tories on the Committee in the House of Commons refused to allow any amendments to be carried. Many attempts were made by the couple of people representing the views of Opposition Members but they were all defeated by the casting vote of the Chainnan. One would have thought that one or two amendments would be carried on a private Bill, but they were not because the Chairman and his colleagues thought that they were political in content.
In the House of Lords a couple of lawyers examined the Bill. I am certain that their changes have not been made because of any political motive. They see that clause 3(2)(b) says that the 1845 mining code is being used. Anybody can see that. There are two codes that are usually used—the 1845 and the updated 1923. The 1923 code usually refers to railways. The lawyers find that the 1845 code is not applicable to other parts of the Bill. Somebody in the House of Lords spotted that and said that in order to make the Bill more compatible in law, clause 85E would have to be inserted. It looked insignificant to me until I started reading it last night. I have spent about 10 hours on it since then. I missed Question Time trying to get genned up on the issue. I did that because this is a scandal. A Bill will be passed by Parliament tonight even though it is defective. We know that and we have heard a Tory Member say the same. He has seen a lawyer who has pointed out its defects.
We know—I read it out—that in correspondence the Speaker's Counsel has also said that it is defective. I have the correspondence and it is now written in Hansard and is in the public domain. He is saying, "Okay, the Bill is defective but it will have to be settled in court." That means that ports having their property taken away—either Immingham or one of the other ports—will have to go to court and spend money in order to win their case. Some people would say, "I haven't got the money and I daren't risk going to court." It would cost a lot of money and I hope that it will cost the promoters a lot of money. We

should not get that far. We should kill the Bill here and now. When the Speaker's Counsel says that a Bill is defective, something should be done.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Skinner: I want to try to finish my explanation. I do not need interventions, even if I were to be here all night.
I want to try to fathom out and explain to my colleagues why the 1845 code is used. It is because Associated British Ports is not a railway and it does not want to be trapped by that code. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South also referred to that. Generally speaking, the 1923 mining code referred to railways.
Very few Tory Members have studied the Bill. Even the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) does not understand the Bill. He is just the paymaster. There is no doubt that the 1845 code was used because Associated British Ports is not a railway. However, the House of Lords realised that in order to make it compatible in law, clause 85E would have to be added. In the 1845 Act there is no section 85E. That is the clincher. When we see 85E we know that the 1923 Act is being used because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) pointed out in a previous debate, that Act contains the additional sections 85A to 85E. By inserting the reference to the 1923 code they have made the rest of the Bill unworkable. That is what the correspondence from the Speaker's Counsel is all about. Solicitors have written and said, "Look here, the House of Lords has amended the Bill but it has made a mess of it and it is invalid."
Anybody with any sense would take back the Bill. Sadly, this is not a true private Bill. At the witching hour hordes of Tories who have not listened to one word of the debate, not even the words of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South who explained it in a similar way to me, will march through the Lobby. There will be shop stewards on the door telling them which way to go—they call them Whips. The Government will be involved. They will say, "That is not true. A handful of Tories will vote against it." There is no question but that there will be bouncers on the door to get the Bill through.
Why do I suspect that the promoters have changed from using the 1845 Act to the 1923 Act? It is all about saving money, as I discovered when I was discussing the Bill with the legal people. They were looking at it blandly—in a legal fashion—but I said, "There must be something more than words; there must be brass." They said, "We are not sure where that is." I said, "I will find it", and I have. Clause 3(2)(b) refers to distances, but another refers to areas of protection, and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South briefly referred to that.
Areas of protection work like a map, and the company can operate only within a clearly defined area of protection. It starts from point A and goes to point B and anybody can say, "The area of protection is as described." The clause refers to metres:
For the purposes of the said sections 77 to 85 of the Act of 1845, as so incorporated, the works shall be deemed to be the railway"—
we now know that it is not a railway but a port—
and, for the purpose of section 78 of the said Act of 1845 (as amended by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923) in so far as it relates to the works, the area of protection shall, as regards mines and minerals lying within 172·21 metres of the surface of the ground, be 121·92 metres and, as regards mines and minerals lying at a greater depth than


172·21 metres below the said surface, the area of protection shall be increased by 18·3 metres for every 30·48 metres or part thereof.
What does that mean?

Mr. Martin Flannery: Tell us.

Mr. Skinner: I will. It means that under the 1845 Act there is a half-depth equation, so that for every metre or yard that one goes down into the earth there must be half on the top. If a firm is into saving money, and to stop any prospective mineral excavator later on, it wants a bigger surface area than otherwise obtains. The promoters used the Act that is based on two thirds rather than a half because it protects a greater area around the port.
That is where the money comes in; that is the reason why they have done it; and that is the reason why they have got into a mess. They said at the beginning, "Let us save a lot more money. Let us not use the old Act, which was based on half depth, but one based on a bigger area because by doing that we can protect our property to a greater extent." Therefore, they used one Act for one purpose but another Act for another purpose and made a mess of the Bill. That is why it should have been thrown out.
The promoters are saying that they want the benefits of the 1845 Act and of the 1923 Act—when it suits them—but that they do not care if it messes up the Act of Parliament in between because they can sort that out when they get into court. They want their cake and to eat it.
We should throw ou1t these amendments. Before you came in, Madam Deputy Speaker, we tried to explain to Mr. Deputy Speaker that the Bill was faulty and that it should not proceed. That was why there were many points of order. If we cannot prevent it from proceeding, we must try to defeat it. The sad thing is that if we do not, the amendments will be carried, with the net result that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament and some poor sod will get his fingers burnt. We should make every possible attempt to defeat it.
One of the reasons why I am so convinced that the promoters used the 1845 Act is in the briefing from Associated British Ports, which was sent to hon. Members. That is where it gives the game away. Paragraph 3 says:
The amendments to be considered were made by the Unopposed Committee in the Second House. No substantial change is effected by these amendments, which in Clause 3 adds sections 85A to 85E of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 to the provisions of that Act incorporated with the Bill, and in Clause 18 substitutes the new general development order".
That relates to the amendments on planning.
8.45 pm
Even in the hand-out the promoters were still talking about the 1845 Act. They were not talking about the 1923 Act and never have been. That is why letters were sent by petitioners against the Bill, including British Coal, to Mr. Speaker's Counsel. I shall read out what he said. Mr. Deputy Speaker did not like it, but it should be written into Hansard exactly what he said:
Thank you for your letter of 16th July with a copy of your letter to Sherwoods of the 13th. I can see no room for doubt that in referring to Sections 77 to 85 of the Act of 1845 the Bill as originally introduced had the effect of incorporating Section 77, as originally enacted, and Sections 77 to 85, as substituted by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 and since amended. The Lords amendments made

no change in that respect but had the effect of incorporating also sections 85A to 85E. That change appears to me to be one advantageous to your clients. I cannot therefore agree that the Lords amendments have made the Bill's provisions worse in any respect. With your observation Number 3, I do respectfully agree"—
this is Mr. Speaker's Counsel saying to a solicitor of British Coal, "I agree with your observation that the Bill is defective"—
that Clause 3(2)(b), although it follows the precedent set by section 3(2)(b) of your firm's Associated British Port Bill (Hull)
—my hon. Friends will recall that that was blocked but it eventually went through—
it is too elliptically expressed in its specification of distances and should have been drafted so as to mesh in more precisely with section 78(5).
Mr. Speaker's Counsel is saying that it does not mesh in. I do not know how much strength that has in legal terms, but if he is saying that a Bill that is going on the statute book does not mesh in—his words are,
it is too elliptically expressed in its specification of distances and should have been drafted so as to mesh in more precisely with section 78(5)"—
that is devastating.
We are told in every textbook on the British constitution that the House of Commons passes Bills, which go to the House of Lords, which crosses the t's and dots the i's and it comes out perfect. That is what we are told. We know that it does not happen often. Generally speaking, that is because no one has spotted it. Members of Parliament do not spot it, Mr. Speaker does not spot it. Speaker's Counsel does not spot it, the House of Lords does not spot it and nor does the counsel in the House of Lords, so the Bill reaches the statute book. Then people say, "Have you heard about the Bill that Ridley introduced? It is wrong." That has happened four times. Many times we have told the Government, "We told you so", but we have done it tongue in cheek. Had we known we should have said so at the time. But this time we have spotted it and so has someone in the legal profession outside this place.
In eastern Europe, they have used the model of the mother of Parliaments left, right and centre as it is supposed to be the best ever. I can imagine people trotting across to Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, and saying, "We have a model at Westminster. We do things properly. Not only do we pass legislation in the House of Commons, but another gang in the other place makes sure that it is perfect, except when it is a private Bill that will make money." It is a scandal that people will make money out of the Bill when people in the House, including Mr. Speaker's Counsel, know that it is defective.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman began by quoting from a letter, but he failed to quote the next sentence which reads:
I cannot, however, imagine that a court or arbitrator, reading its provisions and those of section 78(5) together would have any difficulty in perceiving and giving effect to its intention.

Mr. Skinner: I had not quite reached that, but there was another paragraph after that. Being a typical, run-of-the-mill Speaker's Counsel who will back every horse in the race, because he is not sure—we have consulted lawyers and we know the score—he stated in the next paragraph:
If it were possible at this stage to make more precise the drafting of that part of clause 3(2)(b), I should not hesitate to recommend that it be done.


Mr. Speaker's Counsel, having backed a couple of horses, then, being a legal man and knowing that there might be some trouble later and someone might make some money in court, covers his back and sums up by saying:
I should not hesitate to recommend that it be done.

Mr. Michael Brown: What about the next sentence?

Mr. Skinner: The next sentence states:
The provisions in question, however, were in the Bill as sent from this House to the Lords and their construction, and amendments to the Lords amendments cannot therefore be offered to improve the drafting in this respect.
We know that. He is saying that we cannot amend the Lords amendments. Mr. Speaker's Counsel is saying that if we could amend the Lords amendments they should be amended, but the constitution of this place does not allow that. However, it allows us to send the Bill back. Why is it not going back? We know that if it were sent back there is just half a chance that much more time would be available for people to realise that the Bill is riddled with inaccuracies and faults and that it would finally get buried. More people would read Hansard and see that the number of Tories voting for the Bill has fallen proportionately in the past three years. The majority was only 18 last time and there is half a chance that another handful might say, "That has done it for me. I shall not vote for a defective Bill." If they were here tonight, they would have joined the hon. Member for Nottingham, South in making sure that the Bill was defeated.
That is it in a nutshell. I am sure that my hon. Friends are aware of what is going on. A company is trying to bludgeon the Bill through so that it can make money by bringing in laundered coal from South Africa to send it to Bassetlaw and other places. Those people are not bothered about the people who live in the villages, because they themselves will not be living in villages in Bassetlaw. They are interested only in lining their pockets. They pushed the Bill through the House of Commons without allowing any votes; they sent it to the Lords where someone found a defect and tried to amend it, but having been amended, it is worse than it was before. It ends up with Mr. Speaker's Counsel who says, in so many words, "I cannot recommend this as being a bona fide Bill."
Every single one of us should redouble our efforts to ensure that this faulty Bill is defeated. Not only will we save many people a lot of heartache, but we shall also make sure that that filthy gang of promoters and the people running Associated British Ports are defeated because they are trying to con the British Parliament. Because most Tory Members of Parliament are missing, they do not understand that they will march through the Lobby tonight to allow a defective piece of legislation on to the statute book.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Like many hon. Members, I believe that the Lords amendments are flawed and should not be approved tonight—I refer particularly to clause 18, page 9, lines 6 to 14—because there has been a total disregard of existing British legislation and, more so, that of the European Commission.
As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall confine my reasoning to why the House should not approve the amendment to clause 18, page 9, line 8. The amendment relates to the replacement of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. The 1988 order was made in October 1988 before the

Private Bill Committee in the House began its hearing. If that Committee had known then that the amendment were needed it should have been included in the Bill and the House given a proper opportunity to debate its implications for the principles behind the Bill.
It would have been most inappropriate to approve the amendment to clause 18, which concerns the terms on which the planning permission for the project is to be granted, unless the requirements of the EC directive 85/337 on environmental assessment have been complied with. Even the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place accepted that there was some doubt about whether there was an exemption for the private Bill procedure. The directive sets up the duty and it is for Parliament to ensure that the parliamentary procedures are not inconsistent with the EC directive.
Complaints have been made to the European Commission, and rightly so, concerning the failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the Immingham project. I believe that it would be a grave discourtesy to the Commission for Parliament to pre-empt the outcome of the discussions on the complaint between the Government and the Commission by approving the Lords amendment tonight. Such a discourtesy might mean that the Commission would believe it necessary to take legal action and bring this House into ridicule. The basis of litigation would be that the directive had not been complied with. Therefore, it would be pointless for the House to pass the Bill when the powers in it would turn Immingham into a competitor with Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp; and we should not forget the damage that would occur to the Nottinghamshire coal industry and to jobs. Those discussions could be struck down or even suspended as happened in the recent Spanish trawler case.
9 pm
I contend that the directive should have been taken into account by the Private Bill Committee which could then have considered the environmental effects on the communities in those counties of large numbers of lorries carrying coal to the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire power stations. The Committee's report was in error in agreeing with the promoters that local highway authorities are "under no such obligation." The special report from the other place confuses the issue by stating that local highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles by road. They do not and, what is more, local authorities in counties affected by the Bill maintain that they do not have such powers.
The briefest statistics relating to the proposed Humber port should start alarm bells ringing in all the communities that will be affected by heavy lorry movements. Ten million tonnes of imported coal means 1 million journeys—half a million to the port for collection and half a million to the receiving power stations. Humberside and Nottinghamshire had a foretaste of that nightmare to come during the 1984–85 coal industry dispute when roads and villages suffered badly with all damage repair being paid for either by the ratepayers or individuals. That may be accepted in a national emergency, but it is totally unacceptable on a permanent basis for decades to come.
I have a final plea for my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I ask him to seek from the promoters of the Bill an undertaking that coal


imported through the proposed terminal at Immingham will be transported to power stations only by rail and barge. Only then will the communities facing the threat of coal lorries through their villages be able to rest peacefully in their beds. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes if he will give that undertaking. In the absence of that undertaking, I ask the House to reject the amendment until EC directive 85/337 is complied with.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 157.

Division No. 302]
[9.02 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Amess, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arbuthnot, James
Gorst, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gow, Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bellingham, Henry
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bendall, Vivian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian


Benyon, W.
Hague, William


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hannam, John


Body, Sir Richard
Harris, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bottomley, Peter
Hayward, Robert


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hill, James


Brazier, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Holt, Richard


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Budgen, Nicholas
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butcher, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butler, Chris
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Butterfill, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Irving, Sir Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Janman, Tim


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Colvin, Michael
Key, Robert


Conway, Derek
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lightbown, David


Favell, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maclean, David


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, George
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miller, Sir Hal





Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Squire, Robin


Moss, Malcolm
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Sumberg, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Steve
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patnick, Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Trippier, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Viggers, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walden, George


Portillo, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Powell, William (Corby)
Ward, John


Price, Sir David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, John
Wheeler, Sir John


Rhodes James, Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sackville, Hon Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wolfson, Mark


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Michael Brown and


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Toby Jessel.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Don


Armstrong, Hilary
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Douglas, Dick


Barron, Kevin
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beckett, Margaret
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Beith, A. J.
Eadie, Alexander


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bradley, Keith
Flannery, Martin


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carr, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Haynes, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Crowther, Stan
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cryer, Bob
Hood, Jimmy


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Geraint


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Darling, Alistair
Hoyle, Doug






Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Illsley, Eric
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Richardson, Jo


Kilfedder, James
Robertson, George


Lambie, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Leadbitter, Ted
Ruddock, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Salmond, Alex


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCartney, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Strang, Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Turner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Vaz, Keith


Meacher, Michael
Walley, Joan


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N.


Michael, Alun
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morgan, Rhodri
Wilson, Brian


Morley, Elliot
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, M (N'hampton S)



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Michael Welsh and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Terry Patchett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: In page 3, line 19 leave out "85" and insert "85E" —[Mr.Michael Brown.]

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 155.

Division No. 303]
[9.14 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Churchill, Mr


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Benyon, W.
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Conway, Derek


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dykes, Hugh


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bright, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
Favell, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fishburn, John Dudley


Budgen, Nicholas
Fookes, Dame Janet


Butcher, John
Forman, Nigel


Butler, Chris
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butterfill, John
Franks, Cecil





Freeman, Roger
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gale, Roger
Neale, Gerrard


Gardiner, George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morris, Steve


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gorst, John
Paice, James


Gow, Ian
Patnick, Irvine


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Grist, Ian
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hague, William
Portillo, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hannam, John
Price, Sir David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Redwood, John


Harris, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Haselhurst, Alan
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hayward, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shersby, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sims, Roger


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Irvine, Michael
Squire, Robin


Irving, Sir Charles
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Janman, Tim
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sumberg, David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Key, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thorne, Neil


Knapman, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Knox, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lang, Ian
Tracey, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Trippier, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lightbown, David
Viggers, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Walden, George


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Ward, John


Maclean, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Madel, David
Warren, Kenneth


Mans, Keith
Watts, John


Maples, John
Wheeler, Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wilshire, David


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Winterton, Nicholas


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wolfson, Mark


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Miller, Sir Hal
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Miscampbell, Norman



Moate, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moore, Rt Hon John
Mr. Toby Jessel and


Morrison, Sir Charles
Mr. James Hill.


Moss, Malcolm





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Beggs, Roy


Allen, Graham
Beith, A. J.


Alton, David
Bell, Stuart


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Blair, Tony


Barron, Kevin
Blunkett, David


Beckett, Margaret
Bradley, Keith






Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lambie, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lamond, James


Buckley, George J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Caborn, Richard
Leighton, Ron


Callaghan, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Litherland, Robert


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Livingstone, Ken


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Canavan, Dennis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carr, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Ian


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McFall, John


Clay, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clelland, David
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Coleman, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cousins, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Crowther, Stan
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cummings, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Meale, Alan


Darling, Alistair
Michael, Alun


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dewar, Donald
Morgan, Rhodri


Dixon, Don
Morley, Elliot


Dobson, Frank
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Doran, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Douglas, Dick
Murphy, Paul


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Nellist, Dave


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Pike, Peter L.


Eadie, Alexander
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Prescott, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Primarolo, Dawn


Fatchett, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Redmond, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Flynn, Paul
Reid, Dr John


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Richardson, Jo


Foster, Derek
Robertson, George


Foulkes, George
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Fraser, John
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Fyfe, Maria
Rowlands, Ted


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Ruddock, Joan


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Salmond, Alex


George, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Short, Clare


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Snape, Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hardy, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Steinberg, Gerry


Haynes, Frank
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Stott, Roger


Hinchliffe, David
Strang, Gavin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Straw, Jack


Hood, Jimmy
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Howells, Geraint
Turner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Walley, Joan


Hoyle, Doug
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Wilson, Brian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Illsley, Eric



Janner, Greville
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. Terry Patchett and


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Michael Welsh.


Kilfedder, James

Clause 18

PLANNING PERMISSION

Lords amendment: In page 9, line 6, leave out "Class XII" and insert "Part 11".—[Mr.Michael Brown.]

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 150.

Division No. 304]
[9.28 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Harris, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Atkinson, David
Hayward, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bellingham, Henry
Hind, Kenneth


Bendall, Vivian
Holt, Richard


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Benyon, W.
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Body, Sir Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hunter, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Irving, Sir Charles


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Janman, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Brazier, Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bright, Graham
Key, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Browne, John (Winchester)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knapman, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
Knox, David


Burns, Simon
Lang, Ian


Butcher, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butler, Chris
Lightbown, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Carrington, Matthew
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Maclean, David


Chapman, Sydney
Mans, Keith


Churchill, Mr
Maples, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Marlow, Tony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Colvin, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Conway, Derek
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Cran, James
Miller, Sir Hal


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Miscampbell, Norman


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Moate, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Moore, Rt Hon John


Dover, Den
Moss, Malcolm


Dunn, Bob
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Durant, Tony
Neale, Gerrard


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Norris, Steve


Fookes, Dame Janet
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Forman, Nigel
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Paice, James


Franks, Cecil
Patnick, Irvine


Freeman, Roger
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Gale, Roger
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gardiner, George
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Portillo, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Powell, William (Corby)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Price, Sir David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Redwood, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rhodes James, Robert


Gow, Ian
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gregory, Conal
Sayeed, Jonathan


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Grist, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hague, William
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hanley, Jeremy
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hannam, John
Shersby, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Sims, Roger






Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilshire, David


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thorne, Neil



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Toby Jessell and


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. James Hill.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Alton, David
Gordon, Mildred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Armstrong, Hilary
Grocott, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Hardy, Peter


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barron, Kevin
Haynes, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Beggs, Roy
Henderson, Doug


Beith, A. J.
Hinchliffe, David


Bell, Stuart
Hood, Jimmy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Howells, Geraint


Bermingham, Gerald
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Blair, Tony
Hoyle, Doug


Blunkett, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Buckley, George J.
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Callaghan, Jim
Kilfedder, James


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lambie, David


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Leighton, Ron


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Terry


Carr, Michael
Litherland, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Livingstone, Ken


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clay, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McCartney, Ian


Coleman, Donald
McFall, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cousins, Jim
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Doran, Frank
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Douglas, Dick
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Eadie, Alexander
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Murphy, Paul


Fatchett, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Pike, Peter L.


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flynn, Paul
Prescott, John


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foulkes, George
Redmond, Martin


Fraser, John
Reid, Dr John


Fyfe, Maria
Richardson, Jo


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted





Ruddock, Joan
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Salmond, Alex
Turner, Dennis


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walley, Joan


Short, Clare
Wareing, Robert N.


Skinner, Dennis
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Snape, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Terry Patchett and


Straw, Jack
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: In page 9, line 7, leave out "XII in" and insert "A in Part 11 of" and leave out "1" and insert "2".—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 157.

Division No. 305]
[9.42 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkinson, David
Franks, Cecil


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Benyon, W.
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Body, Sir Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
Hannam, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Harris, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butcher, John
Hayward, Robert


Butler, Chris
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Irving, Sir Charles


Devlin, Tim
Janman, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Durant, Tony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Key, Robert


Favell, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fishburn, John Dudley
Knapman, Roger


Fookes, Dame Janet
Knight, Greg (Derby North)






Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Maclean, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Mans, Keith
Sims, Roger


Maples, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thorne, Neil


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steve
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wheeler, Sir John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Pawsey, James
Wilshire, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Nicholas


Portillo, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rathbone, Tim



Redwood, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Toby Jessel and


Rhodes James, Robert
Miss Ann Widdecombe.


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Blunkett, David


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Alton, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashton, Joe
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beggs, Roy
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Beith, A. J.
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carr, Michael


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Blair, Tony
Clay, Bob





Clelland, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAvoy, Thomas


Coleman, Donald
McCartney, Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McFall, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cousins, Jim
McKelvey, William


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Doran, Frank
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Douglas, Dick
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Eadie, Alexander
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Eastham, Ken
Mullin, Chris


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Nellist, Dave


Fatchett, Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flannery, Martin
Prescott, John


Flynn, Paul
Primarolo, Dawn


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foster, Derek
Redmond, Martin


Foulkes, George
Reid, Dr John


Fraser, John
Richardson, Jo


Fyfe, Maria
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Galloway, George
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Rowlands, Ted


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Ruddock, Joan


George, Bruce
Salmond, Alex


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Short, Clare


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hardy, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Harman, Ms Harriet
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Haynes, Frank
Steinberg, Gerry


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hinchliffe, David
Stott, Roger


Hood, Jimmy
Strang, Gavin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Straw, Jack


Howells, Geraint
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Turner, Dennis


Hoyle, Doug
Walley, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Kilfedder, James
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Lambie, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lamond, James
Worthington, Tony


Leadbitter, Ted



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Litherland, Robert
Mr. Terry Patchett and


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Students (Housing Benefit)

Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. These regulations should be withdrawn because they are technically flawed and defective. It is centred around the allocation of access funds and the moneys will be disbursed under section 100 —[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to engage my attention and that of the House, and he deserves to be heard.

Mr. Meacher: As I have said, the regulation is centred around the access fund and the moneys will be disbursed under section 100 of the Education Act 1944 and section 73 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1945. No regulations have been produced by the Government under those sections. How can the House reach a decision before it has sight of the regulations which will determine how the access funds are to be distributed?
It may be that the Government do not intend to produce any such regulations. That would be worse still. Either way, it would be an abuse of Parliament for the regulations to be voted through tonight when they are technically flawed and deny the House the information on which to reach a proper decision. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, use your good offices with the Minister to see that the regulations are withdrawn until they are properly drafted?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. In the view of the Chair, the regulations are perfectly in order. That is a matter for debate, and I am sure that the Minister will have something to say about it.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.
The contents of the regulations have already been the subject of much debate in the Chamber and in another place. Only last week the House reiterated its support for the Government's policy of withdrawing students' entitlement to housing benefit. However, hon. Members will know that the regulations do not simply remove students' entitlement to housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit: they define those vulnerable groups of students who will retain entitlement to housing benefit and income support—with one exception, which I shall come to later. They also provide for the treatment of top-up loans and payments from the access funds in the income-related benefits.
The regulations providing for this apply not only to students who retain entitlement to income support and housing benefit but to the partners of students who will continue to have access to benefits as now, including income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and family credit. The regulations also provide for the new rate of student rent deduction and allowances for the next academic year.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister explain how the difficult regulations affecting community

charge benefit for Scottish students in their fourth year at universities will apply? This is a difficulty that has been raised with the Department.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman might care to raise that matter later in the debate. I want to set out what the regulations are designed to achieve. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to deliver his remarks.
Two weeks ago the Government took what I believe was a helpful—

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should there not be a Scottish Office Education Minister present for this debate? It may be unreasonable to ask the Minister to be aware of the details of Scottish education, but a Scottish Office Minister should be present.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to determine which Minister moves regulations.

Mr. Scott: Whatever worries the hon. Gentleman may have about Scottish students, I made the point during our debate recently that, in the last academic year—it will almost certainly be the same in the coming academic year—a record number of students in England and Wales applied for places in higher education. The same applies in Scotland. If the difficulties were so great, it is unlikely that we would have such a record both north and south of the border.
Some two weeks ago we took what I hope was the helpful, if unusual, step of placing in the Library proof copies of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on the draft regulations so that hon. Members could study them and use them in our discussions. The Committee's report was published with the regulations. Hon. Members will therefore have had ample opportunity to examine its findings and will be aware that, far from the Committee denouncing the Government's proposals, as recent press reports may have led us to believe, most of them have been accepted by a majority of its members.
It is fair to say that much support was expressed in last week's debate for the general principle that students should be funded by the education maintenance system and not by social security benefits. That is the crux of our policy, as enshrined in the regulations. It was never intended that students should resort to the benefits system to the extent that they do. As I said last week, that was an unplanned outcome of developments in social security in recent years.

Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that applications for advanced education show a substantial increase this year, even though students are well aware of the changes proposed? Is he further aware that, for the forthcoming academic year, student support will be increased by about 25 per cent.? That includes the student loan of £420, which is interest-free.

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend outlines points which were made strongly in last week's debate and which underline this evening's debate. Were everybody terrified about the prospect of student loans being the main thrust of support for students, I do not believe that record numbers of people would be applying for higher education.
In essence, I said last week—I reinforce it without apology tonight—that the objectives of social security policy are not the same as those for educational maintenance policy. The needs and expenditure patterns of students are not necessarily typical of the population as a whole. They have particular needs and are supported for a particular purpose—further, higher and postgraduate education. Through the education system, they will have access to a range of resources, including grants and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, top-up loans. In addition, access funds will be available to assist students who experience financial difficulties.

Mr. Andrew Smith: When will details of the access funds be available?

Mr. Scott: The details of the access funds for further, undergraduate and postgraduate education have been announced.

Mr. Smith: I hoped that it was obvious that I meant the details for students who, if the regulations are passed and their social security is withdrawn, will be in hardship—some in dire hardship. They cannot know, because the figures have not been announced for the allocations to institutions or the details of how those institutions will act as mini-local social security departments.

Mr. Scott: We are still some way away from the beginning of the academic year. The access funds will be distributed to the institutions concerned, but the thrust of the policy for their use is not that they should be unduly prescriptive but that there should be the maximum flexibility, so that those administering them at the institutions concerned can recognise hardship in individual cases and respond through them. That is the thrust of the policy, and it is right that it should be so handled.

Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the access funds have doubled from some £15 million to £30 million? Does he agree that that substantial sum will go a considerable way to alleviating student hardship?

Mr. Scott: I very much accept and welcome my hon. Friend's point. As he said, not only have funds been increased, but my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science have said that they will carefully monitor their adequacy.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important to monitor the effects on disabled students? I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has gone a long way in that direction, but will he keep a careful eye on the access of disabled students to universities?

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend will recognise that, wearing my other hat as the Minister with responsibilities for disabled people, I am particularly concerned about the needs of disabled students. They are recognised in the underlying system, but I am sure that education institutions will take particular care to monitor the effects of the changes on disabled students.

Mr. Tony Worthington: If it is no longer any part of the social security system to support students, why is it any part of an education institution to judge hardship?

Mr. Scott: In a sense the hon. Gentleman has put his finger exactly on the point. It is much easier for the institutions of higher and further education to assess what amounts to hardship in the student population than it is for the social security system across the country, which is addressing an entirely different client group. That must be absolutely manifest. I said last week, and I underline today, that I believe that it is much better and will be more flexible and sensitive to the needs of students for education institutions rather than the social security system to do that, however much admiration I have for the social security system that I play a modest part in administering.
In the context of the range of resources that I was outlining, the Government are proposing to withdraw students' entitlement to income support, housing benefit and unemployment benefit. As I have argued in the past few minutes as well as last week, the alternative provisions available through the education system will provide adequate resources for students to live on. We accept that some students will have financial needs beyond the level provided by the grant and loan. That is why we have been exploring the role of the access funds in meeting any residual hardship. However, I do not believe that it is necessary for the generality of students to fall back on the social security system.

Mr. Dalyell: Can we have just a few facts? When the Minister talks about the generality of students, what figures are available to the Department of Education and Science or to his own Department about the number of students from the lower income groups? There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that great universities such as Edinburgh are not getting the students from relatively low income groups which they would have expected a decade ago. I have no reason to believe that the experience of Edinburgh university is any different from that of a number of other great universities.

Mr. Scott: Surveys are carried out by the Universities Central Council on Admissions and other bodies into the social backgrounds and income levels of students.

Ms. Clare Short: It is clear that young people from low-income backgrounds are under-represented in higher education.

Mr. Scott: Despite the usual sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), we survey these matters. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science are concerned that entry into further and higher education represents a broad spectrum of income and social background. That monitoring and surveying will continue. However, I repeat what I have said at least twice already: we have record applications in England, Wales and Scotland that are not confined to those from the higher income groups. I am satisfied with that.
I imagine that a number of those who have intervened will want to make their own speeches. As this is a limited debate, I should hate to talk out the motion.
I imagine that the House will be somewhat relieved to hear that I do not intend to go through each of the regulations in detail, but I should like to describe some of their main features.
Regulations 2 and 3 relate to community charge benefit and family credit respectively. They deal entirely with the way in which top-up loans and payments from the access funds are to be treated in the calculation of these benefits. I should perhaps remind the House that registered students are entitled to a special relief and have to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge. Subsequently, they are not entitled to claim community charge benefit. These regulations are needed to ensure that these payments are taken into account when claims are made by a non-student partner of a registered student. Similarly, single students cannot normally claim family credit because they cannot satisfy the requirement to be in employment for at least 24 hours a week. The provisions of regulation 3 are required to cover claims from families where one of the partners is a student and the other parent is in work and satisfies the 24–hour condition.
The rules for the treatment of top-up loans and access fund payments similarly apply to housing benefit and income support and are covered by regulations 4(9) and 5(7). Essentially, top-up loans will be apportioned as a weekly amount for the full year. Existing regulations mean that the maximum amount of loan available to the student will be assumed even where the student has chosen to take up a lower amount of loan or no loan at all. However, we also propose that the weekly amounts of loan will attract a disregard of £10, and that means that the vast majority of students will enjoy the full value of their top-up loan in the first year of the new scheme. I believe that that responds positively to the recommendation made by the Social Security Advisory Committee.
However, the disregard will apply only for so long as the recipient remains a student. I hope that the House would agree with that. If a student leaves a course before its conclusion, the actual value of any loan taken out will be taken into account in assessing benefit entitlement for the remainder of the academic year covered by that loan.
Our intention, which we clearly stated in our response to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and in our letter consulting the local authority associations, was that the disregard on top-up loan income should be subjected to the overriding disregard of £10 on all unearned income within the income—related benefits. That would mean that a student in receipt of a top-up loan and other income attracting a disregard would only benefit from a total disregard of £10 on the whole of his income.
However, I must confess that the regulations as currently drafted do not achieve that intention. This omission came to light only after the draft regulations were laid before Parliament. We therefore intend to correct the position at the earliest opportunity by including the necessary amendments in the separate regulation to cover the concession on deaf students which I announced last week and which we will be laying before Parliament shortly.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister is asking us to pass the regulations, which presumably have received careful scrutiny by parliamentary draftsmen and by legal opinion. If he is now saying that they are defective—I will suggest further reasons why they are defective and should be

withdrawn—should he not take them away and bring them back to the House only when they have been correctly drafted?

Mr. Scott: It is fairly typical of the hon. Gentleman to go over the top in responding to what is a modest error in the regulations. We will shortly have another opportunity to implement the concession on deaf students. I am sure that it is right that we should make that modest amendment at that time.
The regulations before us tonight also specify that payments for hardship, made from the access funds, are not to be treated in the same way as the grant.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask for the opinion of the Chair on the following point: is it proper that the House should be asked to pass a verdict—that is what we are being asked to do tonight—on legislation when we hear from the mouth of the proposer of that legislation from the Dispatch Box that it is apparently defective? This is entirely new. If it is considered defective by the parliamentary draftsmen, is it not an insult to the House to bring it before us?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I attempted to deal with that point of order at the beginning of the debate. It is a matter for debate, not a matter for the Chair. It is the responsibility of the Government, and for the Minister to answer those points in the debate.

Mr. Scott: We all know that regulations affecting social security matters are complex. However, it was right for me this evening to acknowledge that there had been a small error in the regulations and to explain how, having an early opportunity before us, we intend to correct it.

Mr. Dick Douglas: When?

Mr. Scott: I said, shortly.

Mr. Douglas: We need to know when, especially as some Scottish universities and institutions will commence their academic sessions in September.

Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present when we debated these matters last week. I made it absolutely clear then that everything would be in place in good time for the new academic year, not just in England and Wales but in Scotland. They will be in place ready for institutions and authorities to be able to make the necessary arrangements. I give the hon. Gentleman that clear undertaking.
I began to explain that payments for hardship made from access funds are not to be treated in the same way as the grant. The payments are discretionary, and it is intended therefore that they be treated in the same way as voluntary payments. That means that regular payments will attract a disregard of £10, and one-off lump sum payments will fall to be treated as capital. In practice, however, we do not expect benefit recipients to be a priority group for the receipt of access fund payments.
The regulations relating to the treatment of income provide for the annual increase in the element of the student grant allowed for books and equipment. The allowance for those items is disregarded in calculating a student's grant income.
Regulation 4 deals with housing benefit. That regulation excludes full-time students from eligibility, on the basis that they are deemed not liable for housing costs.


However, the regulations also provide for a partner of a student to be treated as liable for rent. That measure ensures that the partners of students will have access to housing benefit, even when the student is in fact the tenant.
Hon. Members will wish to note that the majority of the Social Security Advisory Committee members have accepted the Government's proposal to remove students' entitlement to housing benefit.

Ms. Short: I am sure that, whatever the differences between us, the Minister would not wish to mislead the House. The majority of the committee accepted removal on condition that there was a fall-back right for the Government to give people a grant in the summer if they would otherwise be in distress. The Government have not accepted that condition, so the majority of the committee do not support the Government.

Mr. Scott: I have considered the committee's recommendations with some care. I do not think that it took account of the availability of access funds when hardship existed or of the ability of local education authorities to give grants to students during the long vacation specifically if they were experiencing hardship.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made was that the Minister was possibly misleading the House. He is now attempting to cover himself by saying what the social security commissioner should have said. He has not told the House what the Social Security Advisory Committee actually said.

Mr. Scott: The Social Security Advisory Committee is just that—an advisory committee. The Government and Ministers have a responsibility to listen to its advice and to assess it against the reality of the situation and the totality of help that is available to students in the circumstances. That is why the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the response by my right hon. Friend have been published with the regulations.
No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have a chance later to make those points, and I shall seek to respond to them. I am not in the least attempting to deceive the House. I am stating the situation as it is and what resources are available to students in response to the situation in which they are removed from entitlement to housing benefit.
Regulation 4(6), as well as excluding students from housing benefit, sets out those categories of students who will retain entitlement. Those categories also apply to income support and include lone parents, disabled students, pensioner students, student couples with dependent children and students under 19 in further education.
We had intended that the definition of a disabled student—for benefit purposes—should be on the basis of those who meet the criteria for the disability premium, together with a transitional provision to ensure that those disabled students who had previously received income support as students on the basis of their disability should remain eligible for income support and housing benefit. That transitional provision will also apply to those who received income support as disabled students while in relevant education up to the age of 19.
Hon. Members will be aware that we now propose to extend the definition of a disabled student to include students who are eligible for the local education authority disabled students allowance by reason of deafness. However, as I implied, it is first necessary to consult the local authority associations on the proposal. It is for that reason that we have decided to introduce this measure by a separate set of regulations which will be laid before Parliament at the earliest opportunity. The regulations will be drafted to embrace students who are excluded from receiving actual payment of the disabled students allowance on grounds of parental means, and also students who fall within the discretionary award arrangements and who receive an award akin to the DSA, by reason of deafness.
Finally, the regulations relating to housing benefit provide for the annual increase in the student rent deduction. This takes account of the uprated element in the student grant for accommodation costs.
Regulation 5 excludes most students from entitlement to income support on the basis that they are not available for work during the period of study. The regulations redefine the period of study to include the long vacations falling within the student's course, but not the long vacation following the student's final year. Similarly, regulation 6, dealing with unemployment benefit, prevents students from being treated as available for work for any day on which they are a student.
The Government believe that students have made a conscious decision to follow a course of study and are not therefore unemployed in the normal sense of the word. Nor can it be said that students following a full-time course are in any sense available for full-time work. Unemployment benefit is intended to provide financial support for people who face the unforeseen contingency of unemployment, not those who have opted out of the full-time labour market. Similarly, income support, other than for those in vulnerable groups not required to be available for work, is intended to assist only those people who are available for, and actively seeking, full-time work.
Currently students are ineligible for these two benefits during term time and the short vacations. We are now making extra resources available through the education system to ensure that students have sufficient alternative support for the long vacation.
Doubtless Opposition Members will remind me that the Social Security Advisory Committee is opposed to the Government's policy on unemployment benefit. It argues that, if the contribution condition is met, unemployment benefit should be paid.—[Interruption.] Well, I shall put what I hope is an equally reasonable response to that argument.
Full-time students do not meet the necessary conditions of entitlement. I do not accept that students are unemployed in the same way as other claimants. Moreover—as I am sure the House will recognise—an adequate contribution record alone has never been sufficient justification for receiving unemployment benefit. There have always been additional conditions to be satisfied. In a previous report, the committee did not adopt its current line on the contributory principle. In 1986, it accepted that unemployment benefit should not be paid to students in the short vacations since educational provision covered those periods. To pay unemployment benefit, the committee accepted, would be to duplicate provision for


personal maintenance. The Government believe that this argument remains a compelling one, and thus reject the committee's finding in its current report.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister agree that one problem is that the provisions seem to open the way dramatically to changing the position of part-time seasonal workers? It could be argued that, although they are in a different position from students, they have deliberately opted into that way of life. Many people in my constituency have seasonal employment.

Mr. Scott: This is a debate about students, not seasonal workers. We have made certain adjustments to the way in which seasonal workers are treated for unemployment benefit. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt find other opportunities to raise that subject. However, tonight we are discussing student maintenance and whether they may be maintained through the education maintenance system or through the social security system.
Before I leave this issue, I draw the House's attention to the fact that the majority on the Social Security Advisory Committee accepted the Government's proposal to remove students' underlying entitlement to income support—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ladywood would like me to give way, I shall of course do so.

Ms. Short: By a majority of 8:6, the committee agreed on certain conditions. The Government have not met them, so the committee is not with the Government.

Mr. Scott: I have spoken about the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We do not have to accept every word and condition that it puts forward. The broad thrust of the committee's recommendations was in agreement with what the Government are doing. Anyone who knows about the social security system will recognise that it would not be logical for us to say that students are not entitled to unemployment benefit but are entitled to income support. Broadly the same conditions apply to the receipt of both benefits.
Of course, a safety net is necessary in these circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is establishing the access funds, about which we had some exchange of views earlier, to assist students in financial difficulties. As I said earlier in response to an intervention, local education authorities have the discretion to award vacation hardship allowances during the long vacations. Those can be worth more than £50 a week to the student. The costs to the education authority are fully reimbursed. In those circumstances, we do not believe that there is a case for retaining a social security safety net. The existence of such an arrangement could only provide an incentive for the access fund administrators and local education authorities to withdraw from their responsibilities. Our policies are clearly set out and they are that students should be maintained by the education maintenance system. We believe that both the access funds and the LEAs are up to the task.
I should like to explain one other provision. Although the regulations are intended to come into force on 1 September, many students will still be on their long vacation at that time. It would obviously not be right tc take benefit away from students before they were in a position to call on the new support arrangements—loans

and access funds—which will be open to them. Regulation 7 specifically addresses that point: no students will have their benefit entitlement withdrawn this year until they resume their course of study.
The regulations give effect to the Government's proposals on student entitlement to benefits. The issues that they raise have been debated only recently in this House and at length in another place. I am pleased to present them, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raised with you at the outset of the debate the point that the regulations are technically flawed and should be withdrawn. You advised me that that was a matter not for the Chair but for the House. Therefore, I seek the wider agreement of the House that these defective regulations should be withdrawn and brought back only when they have been rectified. They are defective because in large measure they deal with the distribution of the access funds. The Minister spent a fair amount of time talking about the access funds. They are to be distributed under section 100 of the Education Act 1944 and section 73 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1945, yet the regulations under those sections that will govern the distribution of access funds have not been made available.
I repeat my question. How can Parliament reach a proper judgment on the regulations until it has prior knowledge of how they will be carried through? That is exactly the point made earlier in an intervention in the Minister's speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). The Minister simply did not seem to understand the thrust of the question. It is a very serious question, and I hope that the House understands it. The Minister has already been arrogant. He admitted that the drafting of the regulations was defective but did not even apologise for it. He simply said loftily that he would correct the error at some future date.
If the Minister admits that the drafting is defective, and if there is considerably more serious defective drafting such as I suggested, will he consider that the right course is to withdraw the regulations and redraft them so that the House can consider proper regulations? Perhaps the Minister might like to answer that question. I am not asking a rhetorical question, but asking the Minister whether he will do so.

Mr. Scott: I have no intention of withdrawing the regulations. I shall make the modest amendment when we lay the regulation about deaf students before the House.

Mr. Meacher: I am not merely making a point about deaf students. I am asking how the House can reach a decision about access funds, which are at the centre of this debate, when hon. Members have no idea how they will be distributed to relieve hardship.

Mr. Scott: There is no question of the regulations being withdrawn. The access funds will be distributed to the institutions from the three different funds, and it will be up to the institutions to administer them flexibly and sympathetically, according to students' needs. It has never been intended that the access funds should be controlled by regulation.

Mr. Meacher: That is exactly what I suspected. It is an important point, which the Minister had not previously admitted. I am glad to have it out of his own mouth.
The statement that the Secretary of State is required to make to the Social Security Advisory Committee says at page 3, paragraph 14:
Although some central guidance will be given on the administration of the Funds, it is not the Government's intention to fetter the discretion of institutions in determining how the Funds are used.
That is exactly the point—either the guidance is significant, in which case Parliament has a right to prior sight of it before it is asked to pass this legislation, or it is so insignificant as not to fetter the discretion of institutions, in which case Parliament should not pass the regulations if they give such blanket and untrammelled financial powers to the Secretary of State.
It is a serious point because within the past month Parliament has already been admonished by the courts for its carelessness in nodding through—I think the judge's phrase was "Homer nodded", which refers to Parliament, rather than Homer—such vague and open-ended powers to the Secretary of State. That was Mr. Justice Purchas' complaint about the unfettered powers voted to the Secretary of State over the administration of the social fund. However, one month later, we are being asked to do exactly the same again. That is why I ask every hon. Member who cares about the rule of law and having a check on the powers of the Executive—[Laughter.] I know that it causes great mirth to Ministers, but it is a serious matter. If Parliament is to exercise proper control over the Executive, it must reject the regulations until they have been redrafted so that they are genuinely accountable to the House—which at present they are not.
A further absurdity about the regulations, if they are not amended, is that if access funds provided under sections 100 or 73 are to be excluded from income taken into account under the regulations relating to income support or family credit, that requires specific regulations. If the Government do not propose to make such regulations under those sections, which is what the Minister said, access funds will be taken into account and will diminish student benefits. It is wholly unacceptable that Parliament should be asked to pass the regulations tonight when the crassly defective drafting leaves open such perverse consequences.
I make no apology for the time that I have spent talking about whether Parliament should pass the regulations, but I am obliged to speak briefly on the issue of substance. I shall immediately disabuse the Minister of a canard that he continues to peddle—he did so again tonight. The issue is not whether students should continue to be supported in part by the social security system. The Opposition accept, as do the National Union of Students and others, that social security benfits are not the ideal means of student financial support. The issue is whether the proposed alternative form of support is adequate, and in our view it patently is not.
The Government's whole case is that the average benefit received by students is about £315 a year, while the student loan is £420, so the average student will be better off. That argument is flawed on at least three counts. First, the research was undertaken by an organisation called Research Services Limited in May 1987, and is now more than three years old, so the figures are badly out of date. Secondly, it is an average figure, which fails to take

account of huge urban and regional variations in cost. Private rents for students vary between £25 a week outside London, £45 a week in greater London and £60 in inner London. The beauty of housing benefit is that it is what the Government are always looking for—a targeted benefit. It alone takes into account these huge variations, while the Minister is deliberately switching to a scheme that does not.
Thirdly—by far the most important point—the figure is simply wrong. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, in its evidence to the Social Security Advisory Committee, said that in the south-east a student stands to lose £560 in housing benefit during the academic year. We may accept some leeway in the precision of that figure. But the Government's figure of £315 is not merely low, it is ridiculous, and it is absurd that the Government base their whole case on that.
The Government say that access funds will be set up to meet hardship. The Minister repeated it tonight. The total of access funds for undergraduates will be only £14 million, which works out at the equivalent of only £27 per student. Such sums clearly cannot even begin to compensate for the shortfall through loss of benefit. That is the key point which the Minister has simply failed to address. It is perfectly clear that a significant number of students will suffer serious hardship if the regulations go through. However much the Minister tried to wriggle when my hon. Friends were pressing him, that is contrary to the strongly stated intentions not merely of a minority of the SSAC, but of the united committee.
Since the Minister was so unwilling to state the view of the whole committee, let me now mention it to the House. The SSAC said:
We believe unanimously that there must be a safety net which ensures that students are not left destitute".
When my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East raised the issue with the Minister a week ago, he gave this interesting response:
The committee said that, during the long vacation, some students might be particularly hard hit, and that they should have recourse to a safety net. There is already a safety net —the power for local education authorities to pay hardship payments."—[Official Report, 9 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 102.]
He said much the same again tonight. Tonight we want to know what guidance will be sent to local education authorities to encourage them to exercise this role and, more importantly, what funding will be made available to local education authorities to meet this hardship, and what guarantee can the Minister now give the House that all students will be catered for. Until he can answer those questions, I submit that his solicitude on this matter is not worth more than a pinch of salt.
Finally, for postgraduates the Government have clearly established a link between the provision of loans and the loss of benefits. On those grounds, we strongly contend that extension of the loss of benefits to those who are not eligible to loans—postgraduates—is outside the scope and intentions of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, and there is no other provision or primary legislation on which to base this sweeping disentitlement. That is another clear legislative reason why these regulations should be rejected.
It is not enough for the Minister to say, as he has, that the DES recently announced a £400 increase in postgraduate support. The current studentship awards were set in place in October 1989; no increase is planned


until April 1991. With inflation touching 10 per cent., the £400 represents not an increase in resources over the 18 months but a reduction for postgraduates.
These regulations will cause severe hardship for a large number of students. They will remove postgraduates from entitlement to housing benefit, without offering them loans

in replacement. They will narrow the whole basis of recruitment to higher education in the next generation, particularly among working-class students—a point that the Minister carefully omitted.
I call on the House to reject the regulations.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) began by accusing my right hon. Friend the Minister of arrogance. Front-Bench spokesmen may well occasionally display some intellectual superiority, but no one could accuse my right hon. Friend of arrogance. It would be difficult to find a more courteous, patient or sympathetic Minister.
This debate is similar to the one that we held about a week ago on the Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill. Indeed, I heard the expression "Homer nodded" last week: Homer has been wheeled out again and has nodded again tonight. There is actually a common theme running through last week's and this week's debates: does it make sense to focus student support on one Department or two? It was clear from the Opposition interventions in my right hon. Friend's speech, and from the contribution of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, that there is a strong case for having one Minister in charge of student support. Many interventions in the Minister's speech were about the education system, not about social security. The sooner we can put a stop to debates in which social security Ministers have to answer questions about education issues the better.
Each time the Opposition are confronted by the principle of focusing support on the DES they say that they agree with it; but when confronted with the consequences of that principle they refuse to jump. They always vote to retain the present system. They claim to prefer it because they say that the Government will not be generous to students under the new regime—so they prefer to stay with the regime they know.
Now, if the Government were minded to be mean to students, they could be so perfectly well under the present regime, but under the new one another £100 million will be available for students. Against that background, it is wholly illogical to adopt the attitude that the Opposition have adopted. Yet tonight I suspect that the Opposition will vote against the consequences of a principle that they have readily accepted.
If the Opposition are sincere, instead of harking back to the present system, they should seek reassurances on the sort of issues raised in this debate. Are the access funds adequate? The Government have already shown flexibility on that. They have already shown a willingness to increase the funds when it is argued that they need to be more generous. I have no doubt that if they are confronted with future evidence that the access funds are inadequate, pressure will be brought to bear by both sides of the House to ensure that the new system is flexible, generous and meets the purposes for which it was constructed.

Mr. Worthington: On what principle was the amount of money in the access funds calculated?

Sir George Young: I do not know. What I do know is that the amount has been increased in response to representations from educational interests to the effect that they are inadequate.

Mr. Pawsey: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the access funds have increased from £15 million to £30 million? If the Government are so mean with student support, how come there are 200,000 more students in higher education now than under the last Labour Government?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend provides eloquent force for my argument. The premise on which the Opposition's case is founded—that the Government are minded to be ungenerous to students—does not stand up to the available evidence. If access funds are deemed to be ungenerous, there will be pressure to increase them.
Basically, the regulations continue the disengagement of mainstream students from the social security system, but there is a residual entitlement to benefit if a student has a partner. If a student is a tenant but shares accommodation with a partner, the partner can apply for housing benefit. That is a sensible, but perhaps overgenerous, regime. What assurances can be given that this provision will not be abused by students claiming that their accommodation in a university town is shared by a partner, with the partner getting housing benefit in circumstances that may not have initially been intended by those who drafted the regulations? I am sure that there will be a straightforward response—

Ms. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating sheet inspection?

Sir George Young: —to avoid "abuse", which is a better word, of the system.
The disregards are generous. If a student with a partner receives a loan, the loan does not affect the partner's entitlement to benefit up to the limit of £10, which covers the existing student loan. That is a welcome regime. As my right hon. Friend the Minister explained, regular payments will have a disregard of £10, but one-off lump sum payments will be treated as capital. Where there is a benefit claim, whether the payment is regular or is a one-off lump sum obviously matters. It is advantageous for it to be treated as a one-off lump sum payment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain how recipients of benefit will have those payments defined, either as regular payments or as one-off lump sums.
The Opposition are wholly inconsistent tonight, as last week, in conceding the principle but failing to accept the logical and welcome consequence of the principle by supporting the regulations.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The regulations pose the wrong question in relation to the student population. I shall pay particular regard to Scotland, and I declare an interest in that I am a member of the court of Stirling university. The purpose of the regulations is to reallocate resources between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Social Security. It is understandable that, in the interests of good housekeeping, the Government want support for students to come within the vote of the Department of Education and Science.
Like other Ministers, the Minister pleads in aid the increased numbers coming forward to receive the "benefits" of higher, or tertiary—a dreadful word—education. That is not the point. I shall speak not for England, Wales and Northern Ireland but for Scotland. To make headway in becoming a leading industrial nation, we cannot possibly be satisfied with the numbers coming forward. That is a basic consideration. Do the regulations


and the general thrust of Government policy make it easier or harder for the broad mass of young people from, say, the age of 17 to enhance their educational potential? They will make it harder, although it will be easier for those whose parents have a reasonable income. Such parents will persuade their children to seek a loan because in theory it is a good option, when inflation is allowed for, at zero interest. Parents who practise good housekeeping in their own interests, although it may not be in the interests of the nation, will persuade their offspring to take a loan.
Matters are different for young people from working-class families, which is another term that I dislike although I do not abjure it because I know the class to which I belong. Such young people do not have a cushy background and will look at the figures. We have talked generally about student loans, but many hon. Members spend £50 or more on one dinner and that is more than a student receives to keep himself for a week. [Interruption.] All right, let us say that that is the amount that some hon. Members could spend on two dinners. I cannot speak for people in another place, but my comparison is reasonably fair. The onerous nature of the grant loan provision will deter many students from continuing further education.
A few weeks ago I went to Glasgow with some people whom one might loosely call rectors—to use the old Scottish term—of Scottish universities, to see Mr. Harrison of the Student Loans Company plc. The Minister suggested that we might go to Edinburgh. I hope that all hon. Members know that there is a difference between Glasgow and Edinburgh and that it is not just in relation to football teams. In the Student Loans Company plc the Government are erecting a massive debt collecting agency. Eventually, teams of snoopers will be employed to collect the debts that will arise if students are forced into loans.
Our nation—I am talking about Scotland—has been living on its intellectual capital for the last 20 to 25 years. Fundamental research in our universities is decreasing at a time when it should be increasing. Now universities are to be forced to undertake the onerous task of assessing hardship. There are eight Scottish universities. Will there be eight criteria for hardship? What criteria will Ministers lay down or what guidance will they give to universities? Will those institutions have to think up schemes for themselves? That is no way to administer the public purse.
Will students be willing to saddle themselves with financial difficulties or will they be attracted abroad to carry out postgraduate work or fundamental research? That is the cost-benefit analysis that the nation must make. The thrust of the Government's policy is to tidy up matters between Departments. That may look good in bureaucratic terms, but it is entirely wrong for the long-term cost benefit of the nation.
I am speaking for Scotland. If there were a Scottish Parliament, it would place a high priority on education and it would tell the Scottish people that they had to pay for it. They would recognise their responsibility to attract more people into further education because of the underlying support for it.
I must be careful not to bore the House with my personal background. I left school at 14, but I have been a student all my life. I took my last degree part time at the London School of Economics in 1986. I accepted the challenge that we should not just talk about students, but should actually find out what they are like. I must beware of giving a random sample of one, but when I went to the LSE it was packed not with British, but with foreign

students. It was full of Americans. We are forcing our universities to attract students from overseas so that they can pay their way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The overseas students obviously regard our universities as good value.

Mr. Douglas: I accept that our universities are good value, but they have to bid to a central bureaucracy on the basis of their good housekeeping. That is the quasi-market structure that the Government are trying to introduce.
The thrust of the regulations and their priorities are wrong. The Government are deterring people from working-class backgrounds from going on to higher education, so that their gifts can be used for the benefit of the nation. I am not suggesting that students should live lin the lap of luxury, but onerous burdens are being placed upon them.
I shall give another example from my direct experience at Stirling. There is a proposal to put up the rents for accommodation. We are asking the students—and for reasons that I will not go into now I am resisting this—to enhance the accommodation for disabled students. It involves the paltry sum of £60,000. The university wants to expand, but constraints are being imposed on it albeit by its short historical experience.
To constrain universities and students is to the long-term detriment of the nation. I ask the Government not to be parsimonious and not to think of the well-heeled student or his well-heeled parents. We should be attracting into education those who do not have financial help from their parents.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I, too, only recently left full-time undergraduate life. I reinforce what has been said about the experience of undergraduates who, in many universities and colleges, are absolutely dependent upon some form of benefit. That is a reflection of, for example, the housing costs in the surrounding areas, and there is little that can be done about that.
The impact of the regulations and the removing of the benefits will be dramatic, at least for some universities and for some students. The Government's action fails to recognise the reality of life, at least for some students. Nor does it address the position of postgraduate students. The Minister's replies on that subject were inadequate.
It is ironic that this debate immediately precedes one on the assisted places scheme. There is a sharp contrast between the Government's attitude to the provision of basic maintenance for ordinary students on difficult courses throughout the country and their willingness to push ahead with pet schemes to support tiny numbers of privileged young people under the assisted places scheme.
The regulations, which will remove students' entitlement to housing benefit and income support, have met with rejection from several bodies. It should hardly suprise the Government that they have been rejected by the National Union of Students or even, these days, by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The Minister's response to the criticisms of the Social Security Advisory Committee was not only weak but deliberately misinterpreted its observations. It is extraordinary to find the Government using in their support a report that is damning of their actions, as is that of the SSAC.
It is all very well to argue that the committee would have been in favour of the Government's proposals if they were to be implemented in a different way, but the fact remains that the SSAC is against them as they stand. Nothing that the Minister said responded adequately to the SSAC's criticisms.
The Government are failing to make available sufficient alternative finance to meet the students' needs. I am not among those who believe that—

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: In just a moment, but I have little time.
I do not accept that it is preferable to operate a system whereby all students receive the same amount, but which incorporates a tiny safety net—as is suggested. A scheme tied to the real cost of being a student in certain areas would be advantageous. The Liberal Democrats would move towards a common scheme, whereby the benefits system would be used to meet the differing needs of students throughout the country.
I hope that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) does not intend to repeat the point that he made earlier.

Mr. Pawsey: The alternative finance to which the hon. Gentleman referred already exists in the form of the £420 interest-free student loan. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that student support in the United Kingdom continues to offer the highest benefits in the western world? If the Government were as cavalier as has been implied, there would not be 200,000 more students in advanced education today than when Labour was in office.

Mr. Taylor: By comparison with other countries, we are not devoting sufficient resources to higher and further education. Nor are we turning out the numbers that we should. The Government are culpable of a paucity of provision that they should be embarrassed to have mentioned in such debates. The theory that the loan scheme will broadly compensate students for the loss of housing and social security benefits ignores the fact that in many parts of the country many of them will be substantially worse off—even if one does not allow for the fact that there are to be no increases in student grant with the introduction of the loan system.
The Government, together with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, appear to be ignoring graduate students, as they will not be eligible for student loans. It is extraordinary to find the Government introducing a system that will deprive graduate students of a large measure of the support that they currently receive. It is inappropriate that we should be debating this matter. The Government are abusing their powers, but that question will have to be dealt with elsewhere rather than here. One might be forgiven for wondering whether the Government care about the adequacy of the provisions. The increased grants for postgraduate students do not allow sufficiently for inflation. That is quite separate from the loss of benefit.
The Minister has totally failed to answer the Social Security Advisory Committee's criticisms. It pointed out correctly that if a student has made the relevant contribution and meets the usual criteria, there is no obvious reason why his unemployment benefit should be withdrawn. I referred earlier to seasonal workers; there are

many of them in my constituency. To reverse the position, if the long break for students were in the winter instead of the summer, they would be in an almost identical position to that of seasonal workers. It would equally be possible to argue that they were deliberately going to an area where they knew that they would be out of work for a time. I hope that the Government are not suggesting that benefit should be withdrawn from them. The reason why those people are eligible for help is that they need help. However, the Minister seems to be completely uninterested in that fact.
The SSAC also said that it believed unanimously that there should be a safety net to ensure that students are not left destitute, and that they should receive income support. The Government say that the access funds provide the answer to that criticism. Unless, however, much more money is provided, I do not believe that the access funds, when compared with the benefit support that is being withdrawn, can be considered in any sense to be adequate. Even after it has been uprated, the amount works out at only £116 for each postgraduate and £27 for each first-degree or other higher education student. However, the average student outside London gets £6·23 a week and a London student £14·38 a week under the present benefit arrangements. This is, therefore, a considerable cut in student support.
The Social Security Advisory Committee also said that it is impossible to judge at this stage whether the amount being put into the access funds is adequate. The Government's commitment to ensuring that the access funds are administered fairly and properly is revealed to be wholly lacking, since no guidelines have been provided to the institutions that administer them. Social Security Ministers are responding to the debate. They know well that under the social security arrangements one treats individuals who are in the same circumstances in the same way. That is one of the most important principles of any support system.
The Government appear to be creating a system under which no student can be sure of his treatment by any institution. He can be virtually certain that an entirely different set of rules would apply in another institution. It is a complete and utter mess that people will be entitled to support not on the basis of what they need but purely on the basis of what the Government have allowed to a particular institution and what it feels on a particular day and at a particular time about that individual. That is a disgraceful way in which to operate a system of support and it is disgraceful that the House is being asked to agree to it.

Ms. Clare Short: The order is the final part of the Government's package in their move from student grants to student loans. We are removing the right of students to claim unemployment benefit—for which they paid—housing benefit and income support. It means that some students' standard of living will be below that laid down in social security legislation.
We have heard that the regulations are defective. The Minister says to us, "I am putting something that is totally defective before you, but we expect you to vote it through and we shall put it right later." That says something about the Government's respect for the House of Commons.
The regulations provide that those who have to pay rent are not deemed to be paying rent and that those who are available and looking for work are deemed not to be available for and looking for work. That is what we are talking about.
The move from student grants and the availability of means-tested benefits for those who need them to student loans is deeply mistaken. It is a backward move. Compared with other countries, Britain is backward educationally. It is no good for Conservative Members to say that the numbers in higher education in Britain are increasing when we are starting from way behind and the number is increasing less rapidly than in other countries. Even South Korea has more of its young people in higher education than Britain. That is an enormous cost to the life opportunities of talented people who are not being given the chance to participate in higher education and is massively damaging to the future of Britain's economy. We are failing to nurture the talent of our people and thus slipping ever backwards relatively in our economic performance.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Short: No, I will not give way.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The hon. Lady is factually incorrect.

Ms. Short: I am not factually incorrect.
The Minister for Social Security has perhaps some excuse—he is not an education Minister—for pretending to the House that there is not low participation in higher education among people from low-income backgrounds.

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose—

Ms. Short: The statistics show that if one comes from a family with a manual background the chances of participating in higher education are very low. I am sure that the Minister knows that.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Ms. Short: We are massively wasting the talent of many people from low-income backgrounds—

Mr. Davies: rose—

Ms. Short: I have made it clear that I do not intend to give way, but the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) is harassing me. Time is short. He is disrupting the limited remarks that I have time to make and I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can make them.
As I said, we are wasting the talent of people from low-income backgrounds and this move will make things fundamentally worse.
The Government's excuse for the move is that students should not be supported by the social security system. That is uncontentious across the House. But it is a big fib. If one wants to remove students from the social security system, one gives them grants that leave them above the means-tested standards. The Government are removing their eligibility for means-tested benefits so that some of them will fall to a level of income lower than those who live on means-tested benefits.
The present system is that we have means-tested grants backed by access to unemployment benefit if it has been

paid for and housing benefit and income support if they are needed. It is an efficient system in that the money is targeted and goes to those in need. People who are not in need are not eligible for means-tested benefits and those who do well as a result of their higher education and earn a higher income will pay back through the tax system. We are moving to a system that will penalise people on low incomes.
Less than 20 per cent. of students claim income support in the summer vacation. To be eligible for income support they have to be available for and actively seeking work. Under this Government those tests have been made harder and harder. This provision will penalise students who come from areas of the country where there is high unemployment. Only 11·5 per cent. of all students claim housing benefit and 2 per cent. claim housing benefit in the summer. They are the students who do not have another home to go to. Those are the groups that will be penalised by the move that we are making tonight.
It is ideology run mad. The lunacy is that it will be less equitable and efficient and will cost more. Those who already have more will be better off under the new scheme and those with least will be worse off. That is what the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) did not understand. The Government are making available more money but are distributing it in such a way that the poorest will have less than they have now. Those are the facts of this new, ridiculous structure, which will cost more but be less equitable and efficient. The principle of the Thatcher years is that for those who have more, more will be given, but for those who have less, it will be taken away. That is how the regulations will apply to students.
The Government recognise that the regulations will create hardship for students from low-income households and therefore have introduced access funds—they tell us to prevent hardship. The funds will be distributed by the Government to education institutions on the basis of a formula about which we know nothing which will then distribute them to people in need. The Minister tells us that universities and polytechnics know which of their students are in need. That is not true. When a student goes to a university or polytechnic he or she does not fill out forms on income but participates in education. Being aware of the quality of a student's work tells one nothing of his or her income or maintenance means. It is an inefficient way of getting money to those in need. The Minister has not answered the point, but the legality of this move is questionable. Given that he will not answer the point, it is likely to be contested in the courts.
The Minister misled the House—I am surprised that he did so—about the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which was set up to replace the previous committee and to make it more favourable to the Government's social security policy. Officials appointed to it by the Government were split eight to six. The majority said that they were willing to accept the removal of housing benefit, but only on one condition. They were worried that some students would become destitute—their word, not mine—because of the provisions of the scheme. They expressed an overriding concern about that and recommended that the Government should follow the principle that they adopted for 16 and 17–year-olds and that to avoid hardship the Secretary of State for Social Security should have discretion to authorise payment of income support for a limited period during the summer vacation.
The Government refused to accept that recommendation and therefore have the support of no member of that committee. It was wrong of the Minister to call the committee in aid when the Government are not complying with its recommendations.
As the committee said, the effect of the regulations is that destitute students will be running round our cities in the summer. Another badge of the Thatcher years is the many young homeless and destitute people in our cities. In future, highly talented qualified young people who are studying will be destitute in our cities.
The proof that the Government's claim that the purpose of the regulations is to avoid students being dependent on the social security system is a big fib are their provisions for postgraduate students, who will not have access to loans and will be deprived of the right to claim housing benefit. They will simply be worse off. The Government are increasing their grants by less than inflation and taking the extra money from the pool available for postgraduate students. We shall have fewer postgraduates in the future than we have at present.
I am the first member of my family to have had a university education. I received that education because full grants were available. When I was 17 years old and was getting 2s. 6d. pocket money, I would not have contemplated the loan that is envisaged. I now know that I could have paid it back, but at that time I would not have dared. The effect of the regulations is that future generations of people like me will not have access to higher education. That is what the Government are doing tonight.

Mr. Scott: The regulations cover several provisions across five separate benefits. I shall seek, in as co-ordinated and orderly a manner as possible, to respond to the points that have been made.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a courtesy that the Minister should ask the permission of the House to speak a second time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Minister does not need the leave of the House on this occasion. He moved a motion.

Mr. Scott: I try to take advice on those matters and I thought for one moment that the hon. Gentleman had caught me out. I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Much of this evening's debate, not least the opening speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), has circulated round the issue of the adequacy of and the reasons for the access funds. I want to address that issue at the outset.
In response to an intervention, I said that the regulations do not in any sense relate to the distribution of the access funds. They give effect to withdrawal of benefit entitlement from most full-time students except those in vulnerable groups and the treatment of income of those in vulnerable groups who will retain entitlement. I repeat what I said: there will be no regulations covering the payment of access funds. They will be operated by the Secretary of State for Education and Science under powers in the Education Act 1944.

Mr. Meacher: The point about there being no regulations covering the access funds is that large sums of taxpayers' money will be handed over for the unfettered discretion of education institutions. We have no idea how that money is to be used, how it will be allocated, how many will get it and how much they will get. I submit that it is improper for the Government to ask Parliament to pass legislation as open ended as that. The courts will disagree with such legislation as they have disagreed with previous legislation.

Mr. Scott: In a sense that is surprising. I seem to remember being urged by the Opposition on more than one occasion to further enhance the resources available to the independent living fund, which provides substantial sums of taxpayers' money to be distributed at the unfettered discretion of the trustees of the fund in order to meet need. Perhaps what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander according to the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Flexibility and funds distributed by people with particular expertise in and sympathy for the needs of individual groups of people in need of help is not a principle against which I would argue. The hon. Member for Oldham, West can pick and choose the issues to which he wants to apply that principle. I believe firmly in it.

Mr. Douglas: Will each institution of higher or further education devise its own criteria? Is that what we are being asked to support? Surely the Minister's colleagues will tell him that that cannot be right and that guidance will be given by the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Scott: I shall try to address the various points that have already been raised, and how the access funds should be administered is one of them. I have just made the point that they will be operated under the powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Science under the Education Act 1944.
Allocations have already been made to the funding councils and their allocations to individual colleges will be announced in the next few weeks. There was some criticism that that was all a bit late in the day. The 1989 student number data upon which the allocations will be based will not be available to those in the DES administering the access funds until later this month. The beginning of August is therefore the earliest date by which allocations can be notified to colleges. However, I believe that that still gives them adequate time before the beginning of the next academic year to make their dispositions.

Mr. Worthington: The Scottish colleges of further education to which the regulations apply start in the middle of August.

Mr. Scott: Even so, they will have a number of weeks at least in which to make their dispositions. In practice, I estimate that it will be some weeks before students come forward and ask for help from the access funds. They will have their loans and top-up grants. The access funds are, as it were, a residual—

Mr. Worthington: Is the Minister aware that the student loans scheme does not apply to Scottish FE colleges?

Mr. Scott: Of course, I understand that. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making a general point about further education within Scotland. I believe that the access funds will be better administered by each individual education institution. Institutions will be given guidance,


but that guidance will be largely in terms of accounting procedures and how the institutions account for the money that they get from the funding councils. They will be much more finely tuned to the needs of individuals.[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to pause for just a moment. I cannot believe that the existence of access funds will not become more well known in institutions of further education.
I anticipate that the National Union of Students, if no other body, will make it well known that access funds are in existence. It will he in the interest of institutions themselves also to make it known that such funds are available. They will get to know the students, and will be much better equipped to meet and assess the needs of individual students than the social security system could possibly be. The funds will be much better focused on students' needs than the generality of social security claimants could ever be. Higher education institutions will be much better informed.
There are some advantages of that system compared with the other system. For example, no student who is living in hall in any university or institution of higher education can claim housing benefit at the moment. However, a student who is in hall might be eligible for help from the access funds if he runs into particular hardship, That will certainly be an advantage of the new system.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science have already said that they intend to monitor carefully the operation of the access funds and to make sure that they are adequate to meet students' needs in the new circumstances. For example, they will reflect different rent levels in different parts of the country. That will be an important flexibility for the funds. They will become well known among students and among those who are responsible for administering them. The institutions will be able to administer them in a much more flexible manner than we possibly could through the social security system.
There is no disincentive, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West alleged, for local education authorities to make hardship payments. They are fully reimbursed by the Department of Education and Science for any payments that they make. There is no disincentive whatever for them to make special hardship payments. The payments are made entirely at the discretion of local education authorities in order to prevent hardship.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) raised several points. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) alleged that students might pretend to cohabit to get housing benefit under the new scheme. It is, of course, up to local authorities to satisfy themselves that the conditions for entitlement to benefit are being met. If both partners are students, they would not be entitled to housing benefit unless they had dependent children, otherwise one partner must not be a student. Although I am sensitive to my hon. Friend's point—we are always conscious of the need to protect public funds—I do not see that that need be a major problem.
My hon. Friend mentioned that he saw the disregards within the present system as very generous. I certainly agree with that—they are generous. They are best targeted on those who need help most. He asked also how we would check whether the payments made from the access funds

were regular or lump sum payments. I see no difficulty about that. Already within the income-related benefits system charitable payments can be assessed, whether they are regular or lump sum payments. Exactly the same criteria will apply in the new system of access funds as apply to charitable funds already.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West was critical of the Government because of the percentage of students in higher education, and implied that we are performing less well than other countries. The number of 18–year-olds in higher education has steadily risen since the Government came to office. When they came to office, 11 per cent. of 18–year-olds were going into higher education. By 1990 the figure had risen to 15 per cent. We estimate that, by the end of the decade, the figure will be up to 23 per cent. When we came to office in 1979, we pledged that, by 1990, we would have achieved 1 million students in higher education. We achieved that by 1988, and the figure is still rising. As I have said, this year we have a record number of students in higher education and next year it looks as if the figures will be even better. A lot of distorted statistics have been pushed backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House this evening, but the fact is that this country's percentage of the 18–year-old cohort who graduate is one of the highest in the world—

Ms. Short: Nonsense:

Mr. Scott: It is absolutely true, beyond peradventure. The percentage of the 18–year-old cohort who graduate is higher in this country than anywhere else in the world.

Ms. Short: Nonsense.

Mr. Scott: That is perfectly true.
I am delighted that the provisions make special arrangements for disabled students. As the Minister for disabled people I have a particular interest in them. The fact that the basic disability allowance for students has been increased from £765 to £1,000 per year and that new allowances have been introduced to help them with the cost of helpers and special equipment—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 141.

Division No. 306]
[11.31 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amos, Alan
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Ashby, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Aspinwall, Jack
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkinson, David
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Batiste, Spencer
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bellingham, Henry
Buck, Sir Antony


Bendall, Vivian
Budgen, Nicholas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Burns, Simon


Bevan, David Gilroy
Burt, Alistair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butcher, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Butterfill, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)






Carrington, Matthew
Jackson, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Janman, Tim


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Chope, Christopher
Key, Robert


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knapman, Roger


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knowles, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lang, Ian


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawrence, Ivan


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Day, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Devlin, Tim
Lightbown, David


Dicks, Terry
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dover, Den
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maclean, David


Evennett, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Major, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Marland, Paul


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marlow, Tony


Fookes, Dame Janet
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mates, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Maude, Hon Francis


Freeman, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


French, Douglas
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fry, Peter
Mellor, David


Gale, Roger
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardiner, George
Miller, Sir Hal


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Iain


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mitchell, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Roger


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moss, Malcolm


Gorst, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gow, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Needham, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grist, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grylls, Michael
Norris, Steve


Hague, William
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Paice, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Harris, David
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayward, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Holt, Richard
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Sir Peter
Redwood, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rowe, Andrew


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ryder, Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)





Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shelton, Sir William
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Summerson, Hugo
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thorne, Neil
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Thurnham, Peter





NOES


Alton, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Anderson, Donald
Flannery, Martin


Armstrong, Hilary
Flynn, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foster, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Galloway, George


Beggs, Roy
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beith, A. J.
George, Bruce


Bell, Stuart
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hardy, Peter


Blunkett, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Boyes, Roland
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Keith
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howells, Geraint


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Carr, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clay, Bob
Kennedy, Charles


Clelland, David
Kilfedder, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lamond, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Cousins, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Crowther, Stan
Livingstone, Ken


Cryer, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
McAllion, John


Darling, Alistair
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McFall, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Doran, Frank
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Maginnis, Ken


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael






Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter L.
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Walley, Joan


Prescott, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Primarolo, Dawn
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Reid, Dr John
Wigley, Dafydd


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan



Short, Clare
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Robert Wareing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

Assisted Places

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.
I would like to describe briefly to the House the regulations governing the administration of the assisted places scheme. The draft regulations before us provide for certain small amendments to the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1989, which were consolidated last year.
The assisted places scheme was established for the purpose of widening the educational opportunities of able children from less well-off families. As the House knows, it provides their parents with assistance towards—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will move out of the Chamber as quickly as possible.

Mr. Howarth: The APS provides parents with assistance towards the fees at certain independent schools. The assistance is on a sliding scale based on parental income and the principal changes embodied in the amending regulations are concerned with the annual revision of those scales.
Regulation 1 of the draft regulations deals with citation, commencement, application and interpretation. The regulations would come into force on 21 August 1990, subject to the approval of both Houses.
Regulation 2 of the draft regulations provides for grant-maintained schools within the meaning of the Education Reform Act 1988 to be included in the definition of "publicly maintained schools" referred to in regulation 19(2) of the principal regulations. That amendment is necessary because, under the principal regulations, participating schools must ensure that at least 60 per cent. of their assisted pupils attended state schools immediately before taking up their assisted place and for this purpose we must make the amendment to the regulations to include grant-maintained schools in the definition of state schools.
Regulation 3 of the draft regulations updates the 1989 regulations. Its effect is to discount reductions from total income allowed on payments for medical insurance made by parents aged 60 or over.
Regulation 4 sets out the income scale used for assessing parents' contributions towards fees. That has been uprated to take account of movements in the retail prices index. The threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is raised from £7,584 to £8,200.
The provisions and amendments I have just described are necessary technicalities and would ensure the continued smooth running of the assisted places scheme. Opposition Members consistently demonstrate hostility to the assisted places scheme. It may therefore be helpful to the House if I explain why we have this scheme, and why we, and a great many people in the country, value it very much. Our reasons are that we are interested in encouraging high standards in education, wherever they


are to be found; and we want parents, particularly those on lower incomes, to be able to choose the education they think best for their children, regardless of income.
It is those very features of choice and independence that the Labour party apparently finds so offensive. Our best independent schools—many of them former grammar schools that were driven out of the maintained sector by the destructive dogma of the Labour party—see no inconsistency between independence and service to the community. The assisted places scheme, which the Conservative Government introduced in 1981, has enabled many of them to keep faith with their traditions and offer the prospect of an excellent academic education for children who are suited to it, regardless of their social or economic background. But schooling is not just about achieving good examination passes; schools in the APS take an admirable pride in preparing their pupils in every way to make a full and valuable contribution to society. All in all, they provide educational opportunities of a quality that should not be restricted only to those who can afford to pay for them.
Let me stress, to anticipate one of the favourite debating points of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), that I am not saying or implying that there are not maintained schools that provide excellent education—of course, there are many. But we want those first-rate schools in the independent sector to be accessible to pupils whose parents are unable to pay the fees.
These are not just abstract concepts—the assisted places scheme is about helping real, individual children. I should like to tell the House about some assisted place holders who have done exceptionally well, notwithstanding early disadvantages.
Do Opposition Members resent the success of the Bristol girl who gained four grade A passes at A-level and is now studying veterinary science at Cambridge? I am sure that her father, a window cleaner, is rightly proud and glad that the APS has given his daughter such a launch. And so is the bus driver from Blackburn whose son also achieved four grade A passes at A-level and is reading biochemistry at Oxford. Does the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) really intend to deny such opportunities to his own constituents? If an assisted place gave those parents the opportunity for their child to be educated according to their wishes, do he and his hon. Friends begrudge them that?
Then there are the twins from Wandsworth, who both gained three grade A passes and one grade B at A-level and have gone on to study mathematics at Oxford.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for cataloguing a few excellent examples. Will he draw to the attention of the House those Opposition Members who send their sons and daughters to schools on the assisted places scheme, as that would elucidate matters considerably?

Mr. Howarth: Tempting though it is to respond to my hon. Friend's invitation, perhaps at this time of night I should refrain from such an indulgence. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point of general principle, and it is something that should bring blushes to Opposition Front-Bench Members. I have argued for the scheme in

terms of parental choice, but I might also justify it in terms of pupil choice. I am assured by the headmaster of Wolverhampton grammar school, a very distinguished school in the assisted places scheme, that it is not uncommon for 11–year-olds to identify, of their own initiative, the grammar school as the school that they wish to attend. Mr. Patrick Hutton, the headmaster, told me of the case of one young boy from Wolverhampton who did just this. His parents had separated, and his mother was facing great difficulties. He went on to achieve 4 As at A-level and is now reading modern languages at Leeds. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) will at least be relieved to know that the young man turned down Cambridge because he thought it too middle class.
I could tell hon. Members of many more deserving cases—there are more than 27,000 of them throughout the country—but there are other important matters which I must briefly cover.
Opposition Members for ever complain of the cost of the assisted places scheme, but if they must insist on measuring the value of education exclusively in material terms, I am sure that the twins from Wandsworth whom I mentioned will repay to society many times over the investment in their assisted places. The truth of the matter is this: in 1988–89, the average cost to the taxpayer of each assisted pupil was £2,121. The average cost of a secondary school pupil in the maintained sector was £1,985, which is a difference of only £136. But in considering even this small difference we have to take account of the fact that sixth-form education is about 60 per cent. more expensive than education for 11 to 16–year-olds. Whether or not we can conclude that that makes the assisted places scheme cheaper per capita to the taxpayer than maintained secondary provision, there is no question but that it is an extremely close-run thing.

Mr. Jack Straw: Why is it that the Secretary of State, in the past two months, has given me a figure of more than £2,400 for the average cost of a place on the assisted places scheme, and that that is the figure that the Independent Schools Information Service independently quotes?

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentlman had listened carefully to what I said he would have realised that I was referring to the year 1988–89. That should satisfy him.
Another spectre raised by Opposition Members is that the assisted places scheme creams off and impoverishes the maintained sector. Again, the case of Wolverhampton grammar school is instructive. On a basis of 18 comprehensive schools in Wolverhampton, and 171 assisted pupils at Wolverhampton grammar school, on average about two pupils a year have been diverted from each comprehensive. Two pupils a year is hardly robbing a school of a crucial intake. It is absurd to claim that the existence of the assisted places scheme is prejudicial to the academic standards of maintained schools.
What the APS scheme does, and this is its great strength, is to give a genuine extension of choice and opportunity. I need hardly say that all of the schools in the scheme have been carefully selected on the basis of their proven records of academic achievement. The same criteria are also applied to any new schools entering the scheme. The breadth and quality of the curricula they offer are in every case of high quality. And so are their records of success in public examinations.
Last summer 89 per cent. of A-level entries by APS pupils resulted in passes, and of these nearly 25 per cent. achieved grade As and nearly 23 per cent. achieved grade Bs. In addition, 87 per cent. of GCSE pupils in the scheme resulted in grades A to C.
Throughout the nine years of its existence the assisted places scheme has been a major success. Predictably, therefore, Opposition Members want to abolish it. I wish they could find the courage to acknowledge that, so far from removing a source of inequality and striking a blow against privilege, abolition of the APS would serve only to worsen social divisions of class and race and culture which the APS is working significantly to diminish. Without the APS, access to independent education, and to some of the finest schools in the country, would be open only to those who could afford to pay. So perhaps the hon. Member for Durham. North-West will explain later how she would further the cause of an egalitarian society by limiting choice to the affluent.

Mr. Harry Greenway: It is interesting to hear of the success of APS pupils in exams. That was one of the main reasons for introducing the scheme. Has any progress been made in broadening the IQ range of pupils accepted for the scheme; indeed, do the Government have any plans thus to broaden it?

Mr. Howarth: It is for the schools to set their entrance exams and establish their own principles of selection. A number of schools are anxious to broaden the range of their social intake and are prepared to be flexible about their academic requirements. Schools in the scheme are well seized of my hon. Friend's point.
I wonder what Opposition Members would have to offer the children of this country if they were to abolish this excellent scheme. The difficulty of the hon. Member for Blackburn—one of his difficulties—is that he does not have an education policy. Moreover, he feels, very uncomfortably, the hot breath of the Socialist Education Association at the back of his neck. It does not make it any more pleasant for him that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central was rather a success at its conference. So the hon. Gentleman makes his pledges of abolition and destruction. Beyond that he offers nothing more than vague and completely unconvincing commitments to spend more money than we would on our other policies that they have said they will not reverse. I would put it to the hon. Member for Blackburn that the interests of children from poorer families are of rather more permanent importance than the hon. Gentleman's beleaguered career in the Labour party.

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East): I have been impressed by hearing of the academic performance of some of these youngsters. It very much resembles the performance of youngsters in the good grammar schools of Northern Ireland. In view of the success of these distinguished youngsters, does the Minister have any plans to increase the number of places on the scheme?

Mr. Howarth: Indeed. I am pleased to tell the House that we are committed to increasing the number of assisted places to 35,000 by the mid–1990s. We are strongly on course to meet that target—

Mr. John D. Taylor: I have been impressed by the Minister's enthusiasm on this subject. He referred at least three times to "the country" in his speech.
Now that he intends to extend the programme, will he extend it to the nation, rather than to what he considers to be the country?

Mr. Howarth: I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's eagerness that his constituents should benefit from the scheme, but that he must pursue with the Northern Ireland Office. I certainly note what he has said, however.
Our response to the success of the APS is as predictable as the Opposition's desire to abolish it. We are building on it so that parents in every part of the country will have access to the opportunities that it offers. Last year we added 52 new schools to the scheme. From this September, 17 more excellent schools in areas in which there was previously little provision under the scheme—including the north-east, the area from which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West comes—will open their doors for the first time to assisted place holders. A number of existing schools will be allocated increased quotas to enable them to meet the demand that they are experiencing for extra places.
The assisted places scheme is flourishing. It is working to the detriment of no one and to the great benefit of many. For all the reasons I have given, I commend the draft regulations to the House.

12 midnight

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: In opposing the draft regulations, I should like to congratulate the Minister on what I think is his first full speech from the Dispatch Box. It is good to hear him in full flow, and not just at Question Time.
In opposing the regulations last year, I outlined the research which demonstrated that the assisted places scheme has totally failed to meet the Government's objectives. I shall not go through that research in detail this year, although many of the contradictions were clear in the Minister's speech.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Armstrong: I shall not give way. It is not in the interests of anyone to conduct the debate as though it were taking place in a bar room. I certainly did not learn to do things that way at my state school.
The assisted places scheme has created needless divisions in society. To use the word "choice" in this context is a questionable use of the English language. Perhaps the Government need to go back and learn what some words mean.
The Government have been slow to learn. Everyone—even, in the past week, the Secretary of State—has conceded that we need, and this nation demands, an effective performance for all our children from the education system. People may have thought that education opportunities for all were a socialist aspiration—they never were, of course—but they cannot be that. Education is now a pressing necessity as we see the thwarting of not only the opportunities of individual children but the opportunities of our nation to cornpete effectively with our European neighbours. Despite that, the Government continue on a course which is unsuccessful but which gives the message, "We know what is good and we want 1 per cent. of the nation to benefit from it."
The scheme was meant for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and the Minister outlined the history. I hope that he has read some of the research into the scheme. I hope that he has read "The State and Private Education: An Evaluation of the Assisted Places Scheme", which was published in the past year. An interesting review of the book in The Times Higher Educational Supplement was written by the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who wrote the book?"] The book was written by Professors Tony Edwards, John Fitz and Geoff Whitty and it was funded by the Government through the Science and Engineering Research Council.
The review was written by the Minister who was responsible for guiding the Education Bill through the House in 1980. He said:
Certainly ministers, including myself, have claimed in the annual debate on the scheme in Parliament that the sons and daughters of bus and lorry drivers, miners, butchers, recent immigrants and one-parent families, for example,"—
he missed window cleaners—
have through the scheme received a first-class education they would not otherwise have attained and this has been to the good of the country and to the pupils.
The authors, however, put a new light on this. Only 10 per cent of assisted-place pupils have fathers who are manual workers and 50 per cent are employed in service industries.
Does 10 per cent. meet the Government's objective? The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) then says:
Even more significantly, 68 per cent of mothers and 51 per cent of fathers of such pupils attended either private or selective education.
The right hon. Gentleman also deals in the article with the issue raised by the Minister about what happens to the local comprehensive. He asks whether the scheme has damaged the academic standards of such schools. He reminds us, as did the Minister, that only 1 per cent. of pupils occupy assisted places, which are unevenly scattered. The right hon. Member also said:
I suspect, however, that the aspirant assisted-place parents with their educational backgrounds would not have sent their children to inner-city sink comprehensives, but they would have been wise enough to shop around and get them into better comprehensives with higher academic achievements. Thus if there is any damage it must be to the better … comprehensive schools.
That is a former committed Minister recognising that the scheme has failed.
The scheme was also designed to provide choice and support effort in local communities. I have a letter relating to the trustees of the Harpur Trust in Bedford.

Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The convention of the House is that if an hon. Member intends to quote or refer to another hon. Member, that person be so advised. Has that convention been observed in this case?

Ms. Armstrong: I sent a note to the right hon. Member for Brent, North and he was also informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when he was quoted at Question Time.

Dr. John Reid: When the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) was informed about my hon. Friend's comments on his review and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn

(Mr. Straw), did he say that my hon. Friends in any way inaccurately reflected his view as a former Minister and headmaster?

Ms. Armstrong: I have not spoken to the right hon. Member for Brent, North and would not want to assume anything of the sort. I am quoting what he wrote for The Times Higher Educational Supplement.
The scheme is frustrating voluntary and charitable effort. There is a voluntary scheme that supports poor people who want to get their children into Bedford school. The terms of the bursary for the assisted places scheme have been issued for this year. They say that a parent earning £39,500 per annum who has one child at Bedford school be helped with fees. Parents with two children can receive help when their income is £41,800. With three children the annual earnings figure is £47,300.
Today people are talking about supporting the family. Perhaps we have a new definition of the family in poverty. The people that I have mentioned are certainly well-paid window cleaners. To use the rationale of choice to try, unsuccessfully, to legitimise such a policy is nonsense. What choice is there for parents in Doncaster, Calderdale, or North Tyneside? The Government have said that too much is being spent on the children of such people, but they are prepared to pay an average of £500 more per child on the assisted places scheme. What choice is that? What choice is there for parents who are limited by what the Government are prepared to allow their local authorities to spend on their children? The scheme does not meet the Government's objectives as they were originally outlined—

Mr. Tim Devlin: I refer the hon. Lady to choice a little nearer to home. She may not be aware that children in her constituency can obtain assisted places at Yarm and Durham schools. Is she prepared to go back to her constituency and say that those children should not be allowed such places and instead should be sent to the local comprehensive school?

Ms. Armstrong: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's information is more up to date than mine. My information is that Durham county does not support any assisted places. However, the hon. Gentleman may be right. We intend to phase out the assisted places scheme, but we will not penalise any child who is already participating in it. We are determined that all children, whatever their backgrounds, will have the very best opportunity. It is not only in their interests to ensure that our commitment and investment in education meets that aspiration; it is in all our interests.
I shall complete my quotation of what the right hon. Member for Brent, North said in his review:
One criticism of the assisted-places scheme not mentioned in this book is that it took up too much time and effort of the Conservative Party … the assisted-places scheme could have taken the party down a side alley. Is this now being repeated with the city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools or even local financial management? A careful reading of this book has caused me to have this very worrying thought.
I invite the Minister to read the book. The Opposition have learnt, even if the Government have not, that the scheme meets no one's educational objectives, not even the Government's. Perhaps they should learn some of the political lessons that the right hon. Member for Brent,


North has learnt. I invite my hon. Friends to oppose the regulations and to ensure that we have a Government who will fight for every child.

Mr. Conal Gregory: The House should consider this important matter with due consideration, especially as some 4,000 places in England are available to brighter pupils with limited financial assistance. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot raise the sum that he is considering. The fact that 4,000 places in good independent schools are not taken up shows that a small advertising campaign would greatly assist those pupils to whom my hon. Friend so rightly referred.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on the north-east. It is clear that there has been a good take-up of places in Yorkshire—for example, Batley grammar, Bradford grammar, Bradford girls grammar, Harrogate college and schools of that ilk. We would all be proud to send our children to schools of such quality. I am proud that in or near to my constituency children have the opportunity to attend St. Peter's in York, England's oldest school, and Pocklington near York.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will advise us how we can ensure that all children in the north-east appreciate the possibilities of a brighter and wider education in the independent sector. The latest figures available show that 70 per cent. of places had been taken up in the north-east, but that leaves a yawning gap of opportunity which I hope will be filled at the earliest opportunity.
In 1988–89—the latest year for which figures are available—the average cost of a place was £2,591, but there are certain differences that should not act as a disincentive. The fact that 52 per cent. of pupils on assisted places secured either A or B grade A-levels compared with 45 per cent. across the sector is another reason pupils of good academic ability should have their names put forward.

Mr. Devlin: I declare an interest as a governor of Yarm private school in my constituency, which operates the assisted places scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that the scheme's real importance is that, like direct grant, it gives the talented child from whatever background the opportunity to maximise his lifetime opportunities? Is not it surprising that the scheme is opposed by Opposition Members when there are many among them who benefited from the direct grant scheme in the past? In only the last week we saw a marvellous example of how it can assist the very best to get to the top in society, because my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was himself a direct grant boy at Dulwich college.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that interventions should be brief.

Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a salient and relevant point. It would do right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House much credit if they acknowledged the benefits of education through the independent sector and the opportunities that many young people have been given by the assisted places scheme, rather than constantly denigrate it and argue that we should go for the lowest common denominator.
Opposition Members should accept the truth of that, and not deny the advantages of such an education to those who follow them.
This issue merits a full-scale debate. The Opposition are obviously rattled, knowing that they are on very slippery ground. I commend the regulations to the House, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address in particular the difficulties of the north-east and the opportunities that are available there. I hope also that a leaflet can be produced explaining to parents the financial aspects of the scheme, because the calculations based on relevant earnings are difficult to understand and require the help of a local bursar.

Mr. Martin Flannery: You will note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have Ulster behind me. But the people in front of me—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: You mean, the Liberals.

Mr. Flannery: Conservative Members are in high good humour tonight, but I hope that they will listen to my comments about the assisted places scheme.
The entire British education system is in urgent need of assistance. Last week, a group of Sheffield schools sent a delegation to Whitehall in the hope of seeing a Minister. They did not manage that, but I believe that they saw a civil servant instead. They came down to tell us that they were short of teachers, that their schools were crumbling and that there was a lack of morale among teachers.
The speed with which the so-called reforms are being pushed forward is having a parlous effect on schools. They cannot possibly keep pace with them. On top of all that is the assisted places scheme. The children of Conservative Members are being educated privately, whereas we are trying to cater for the needs of the vast majority of children. Money is short because the Government are deliberately keeping it short. They provide expensive education for their children and cheap education for ours. On top of that, the Government have the effrontery to say that we are being naughty when we attack what they are doing.
If we examine what the Government mean by choice in the case of the assisted places scheme, or anything else, we have to ask ourselves—since they have private education and have created the city technology colleges—what choice ordinary children have in the schools on which so little money is spent. The city technology colleges are to be paid for by industry. Their pupils are hand picked. Are assisted places available in those colleges for ordinary children? The assisted places scheme is a piece of gross effrontery. Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are being siphoned off to provide private education for the children of Conservative supporters. It is done under the guise of helping poor children, but the Government know that that is a piece of gross effrontery.
I have in my hand the Government's document that deals with the scheme. It began in 1984–85 and £22 million was spent on it in the first year. In 1985–86 another £30 million was spent on it. In 1986–87, £38 million, in 1987–88, £46 million, in 1988–89, £51 million and in 1989–90, £59 million was spent on the scheme. Up to today, that has taken £246 million out of the state education system. In the next three years, £62 million will be taken out of it in the


first year, £60 million in the second and £70 million in the third. That amounts to another £192 million. Taken together, £438 million has been taken away from state education. In addition, the city technology colleges have taken £52 million this year. During the next three years they will take £135 million. The grand total that is being taken away from state education is £635 million.
The Government ask us to support that proposal tonight. No Conservative Member has referred to those figures. The cost to the state education system is absolutely staggering, especially when one remembers all the difficulties that Her Majesty's inspectors of education have highlighted. That money would buy books and materials for all our children. The Government claim that they are providing choice for our children. However, they are pouring all that money into a private education system that caters for their children and they are shoring it up by that means. They do it under the guise of catering for our children.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the figures that he quoted, a large number of teachers who were trained at public expense and who are much needed in schools such as those in Tower Hamlets are being used to ensure that the classes of the privileged minority are kept small?

Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why Conservative Members are keeping so quiet. They know that in their report Her Majesty's inspectors point out that a third of our children get what they call a raw deal. They are taking money from the state system and giving it to the private system, which is already wealthy beyond measure. It is a bribe to Tory supporters and a handful of others. It is money taken from our children who are being starved of funds in the state system. They glory in it. It is all part of a merciless attack on the state system, which the Tories loathe and never use. It is the same with the national health service, which they also do not use and are starving of funds—[Interruption.] No amount of shouting at me will help. They know that I have a habit of telling them uncomfortable truths.
While this measure is being discussed late at night, the state system is under attack and, according to what the Tories have said recently, the comprehensive schools will be next. However, they have gone over the top. The people have seen it for the dogma that it is and they are extremely angry at the state of the education system and the fact that the Tories are siphoning off money. Those angry people will be coming to see all of us before long because there is not enough money to teach our children. Local management of schools is adding to the list of schools without teachers. That is the position in which we have been placed by the assisted places scheme, city technology colleges and the siphoning off of money that should go to our children.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Despite the lateness of the hour, the sort of ideological claptrap that we have just heard should not go unanswered. I am slightly surprised at the Labour party's depth of opposition. Basically, this is an egalitarian measure. It provides opportunities for people who would not otherwise be able

to afford them to take advantage of a private education. For that reason it is scarcely surprising that it is popular. When it was introduced in 1981 only 7,000 people took advantage of it, but by this year the figure will have increased to 27,000 and just under one third of those will get their education entirely free. A large proportion of the others who take advantage of the scheme will pay relatively little for what would remain an unobtainable privilege if such a scheme did not exist.
I should have thought that it was a good sign that 294 private schools—there will be 16 more this year—were prepared to offer places to people who otherwise would be unable to afford them. I should have thought that that would make them less exclusive, widen the social spectrum of those able to go there and increase opportunities for people who otherwise would not have them.
Although the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) talked about cost, I believe that the basic reason for the Labour party's opposition to the assisted places scheme is purely ideological. In 1976 the Labour party signed the United Nations covenant on economic, social and cultural rights which says:
The State Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by public authorities".
However, if we look behind that, we see that that is a human right upon which the Labour party frowns. It is a human right which it would prefer nobody to take up. It wants every child in the country to go to comprehensive schools in the state sector and to have little choice and no opportunity to go to private schools.
The Labour party is suspicious of choice, variety, high standards and selection. It opposes grammar schools. It opposed and effectively demolished the direct grant schools. It opposes grant-maintained schools which are popular with parents. It opposes CTCs despite the fact that the CTC in Solihull is seven times over-subscribed as it is so popular with parents. In Birmingham it opposed the concept of open enrolment within the state system. In other words, it believes that children should attend the school that the local authority thinks they should attend. It opposes the private sector because it wants to end charitable status and has the idiotic idea that by so doing it will help children who would otherwise be unable to attend private schools. In short, whether it is parental choice, selection on merit or high standards, its Pavlovian reaction makes Pavlov's dog look reasonably rational.
The Labour party tries to dress up its arguments as being rational. The first argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hillsborough was cost. He said that the £61 million a year that is being spent for 27,000 pupils on the assisted places scheme, at an average of £2,300 per pupil, would not be available for the private sector, but as a headmaster of a participating school said recently, that is a gross cost. The cost to the state of sending a pupil to a school in the maintained sector is not incurred if he attends a private school under the assisted places scheme.
As there is evidence that parents contribute to the cost of their children's education under the assisted places scheme, and as schools, especially boarding establishments, also contribute to the cost of children's education under the assisted education scheme, the most intelligent way of looking at it is that the scheme offers the state an


opportunity to provide an education that would normally cost £4,000 or £5,000 for a net average cost of £2,200. That is a good deal for the taxpayer.
The other point which has not been mentioned so far but which is put forward by opponents of the scheme is that it draws bright children away from the state sector. The effect is far too diffuse to affect individual schools. No one has said to me, "Our school is being affected by children taking up the assisted places scheme." Although this idea seems antipathetic to the Labour party, I thought that schools were meant to be run for pupils rather than for schools.
Labour Members fall back on their ideas of egalitarianism—the lowest common denominator. Irrespective of the examples that the Minister gave tonight, of the academic quality of the results achieved by pupils on assisted places in private schools and of the fact that the scheme broadens the number of people who attend private schools and therefore the social spectrum, all that they can say is that if not everybody can attend them nobody should do so.

Mr. Pawsey: The politics of envy.

Mr. Coombs: Exactly. If that is not the politics of envy, malice and means-spiritedness in the extreme, I do not know what is.
The scheme speaks for opportunity and high standards and it does not damage the stage system. As The Observer said in 1988—this is the most up-to-date article on the assisted places scheme, which shows how accepted it has become in the education establishment—
The Assisted Places Scheme has confounded its critics by providing art opportunity for low income parents to opt for an academic education.
The scheme has made private education more accessible. I hope that the 7,000 places on it will be taken up and that it will be expanded in the future. I shall be delighted to support it in the Lobby tonight.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I would not describe the regulations as egalitarian. I would describe them as nauseating—like the contributions that have been made in this debate which have attacked and derided the quality of education in our state schools. Conservative Members have told us how wonderful private, fee-paying schools are and that that is where high academic standards are to be achieved. They tell us that we are mean-minded to say that the very few should not have access to those academic centres of excellence.
Speaking as a parent who has a child in the state education system, I want all children to have access to the highest quality of education as a right to prepare them with the tools to contribute to our society. Extraordinary points have been made in this debate. On the one hand, we were told that the scheme is helping to break down the inequalities in our education system. On the other hand, we were told that only a few have access to the scheme. The very presence of the scheme widens the inequalities and opportunities between those who attend the state sector and those who attend private fee-paying schools.
It is all about buying privilege for the few. I totally reject the establishment of an education system that operates, as some hon. Members have suggested, on the lowest common denominator. I would not want the lowest

common denominator education for my son; I want the very best that the education system can offer him as his right to build his future.
The Government are two faced about education. Avon county council has been poll tax-capped and the Government tell us that Avon is overspending by £57 million a year. However, it costs £1,898 a year to educate a pupil in a comprehensive school in Avon. I looked at the many private fee-paying schools in Avon to get an idea of the system that we are being told is egalitarian in which privilege and rights are bought in our society.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying about equality and egalitarianism. Does she recall the time when we had an enforced system of comprehensive schools in London? Where catchment areas were drawn by local authorities, the determinant of entry to a school was not ability or religious background; it was whether one's parents could afford to buy a house in the catchment area of one school as opposed to another. Tonight the Labour party might like to make it plain that given the opportunity Labour would require all schools to be organised along comprehensive lines, with 11 to 16 schools and tertiary colleges serving them. Nothing else would exist. Will the hon. Lady come clean on that point?

Ms. Primarolo: I had the privilege of attending an excellent comprehensive school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). It had excellent academic achievements. It was an excellent example of how well-resourced comprehensive education operates. It is a tragedy that, in several ways, the education system in which my son now finds himself is worse than the education system in which I was at his age. Schools are In worse condition, resources are declining, and insecurities are worse as a result of 10 years of this Government.
To quote at random, at Monkton Combe school, Bath, a day fee-paying school, annual fees are £5,625. At Clifton college, Bristol, a day fee-paying school, annual fees are £5,820. At Colston's school, Bristol, annual fees are £3,555 per year. That is much more than is being spent on my son's education. That is wrong. There should be no distinction. All bright children should have the right to go to schools that stretch their abilities. All children should have the right to go to properly resourced schools. On the Minister's own figures, the average cost of an assisted place is higher than the cost of educating a child in the state sector.
People talk about academic education, good exam passes, preparing pupils to take an active role in society, equal opportunities of quality, and the benefits of education. All our children have a right to access to all those things—not the odd one or two children who get through on the assisted places scheme. Let us make no mistake. The schemes are being expanded because there are not enough pupils to keep schools going because of the drop in the population, thereby taking children out of our state system.
Bright children will do well whether they are in private schools or state schools. It is appalling that the House should say that a tiny proportion of our children should have the right to additional resources, to the detriment of the rest of the children in this country. Avon county council has been poll tax-capped. The Government have told it to cut expenditure and have then given more money to state-assisted places. That is obscene.
The Government have been exposed for what they really are. They favour privilege for the few at the cost of the rest of us. If we are to have a lecture on egalitarianism, perhaps we should start with basics, not buying privilege.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I cannot possibly agree with or follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), who would restrict entry to independent schools to those who earn £30,000 or £40,000 a year or more. That cannot be right, because the assisted places scheme has been successful. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) say that the scheme was a failure and was not working. Having taught young people on the assisted places scheme, I can say that it is a success for the vast majority of those young people. The Government should be proud of that scheme, along with the other ideas that they have brought forward to provide variety and choice in education.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to the money that is going into the assisted places scheme. He said that that money is lost to the state system and to our young people. It is an insult to the 172 young people who are going through Norwich high school on the assisted places scheme. They would not like to be told that the money that is being spent on them is a waste. These arguments are total nonsense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] As my hon. Friends are reminding me, the assisted places scheme is basically a good, successful scheme. After all, it is good not only for the boys and girls who attend schools that use the scheme, but, from my experience, I know that it is good for the schools themselves. They benefit in many ways from that intake of pupils.
I have not heard one argument from the Opposition to convince me that my personal experience of the scheme is mistaken in any way. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they have the support of my hon. Friends and of the overwhelming majority of parents in this country. The Opposition's arguments are total nonsense and the sooner we recognise that, the better.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I have listened with some interest to the speeches of Conservative Members. Two appalling comments stood out which are, unfortunately, indicative of the attitudes behind the Government's creation of the assisted places scheme. One Conservative Member said that the scheme provided an academic education. The publicly run schools in my area of Cornwall have a high reputation and the teachers whom I visit would be most insulted if anybody suggested that they provided anything less than an academic education. There is no such distinction. It is wrong for any hon. Member to suggest that those who work in the state system are providing anything less than that which is provided in the private system. There may be more money in the private system and the ability to select more highly, but it is absolutely wrong to suggest that the teachers in the state system are not providing an academic education to the

best of their abilities, that they are not doing the best for their pupils and that they are not tailoring the education to their needs.
Worse, however, was the earlier suggestion of another Conservative Member that, by arguing against the assisted places scheme, the Labour party was arguing for the lowest common denominator. No argument in favour of the state system and about whether resources should be used on assisted places suggests that the target is the lowest common denominator. Nor does anything that happens in the state system point to the lowest common denominator. All the teachers to whom I speak or with whom I work and visit in my part of the country—I know that this is true in other areas—are looking to the highest common denominator, to do the best for all their pupils and to tailor the education that they provide to the needs of their pupils. To suggest that the state system is about the lowest common denominator is redolent of insults about everything that takes place there. Such suggestions should not be made by any side of the debate.

Mr. James Lamond: If the public sector of education is the lowest common denominator, that is an indictment of the Government who have been responsible for administering and running it for the last 10 years.

Mr. Taylor: That is absolutely right. That is precisely the point to which I was coming.
The attitudes that we have heard from Conservative Members and the system of the assisted places scheme itself are both elitist and defeatist. The system is elitist because it seems to suggest that we can give the best education only to a few for whom extra resources are provided, which are diverted into the private sector. Therefore, by definition, the scheme is limited in the opportunities that it can provide because it cannot provide those opportunities to the vast majority.
The system is defeatist because it also seems to suggest that—no matter what—public policy has to direct what resources there are to those whom Conservative Members believe are the best pupils and to the private sector because it is impossible—they believe—to provide that best education through the state sector. That defeatism is not right. I should not argue against what the Government are doing if I believed that it was right. I believe that it is possible to provide the best education for all pupils from all backgrounds in the state system.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: So that we can see whether there is any connection between the philosophy of liberalism and the title of the hon. Gentleman's party, will he tell us whether he believes that there should be any assisted places scheme, direct-grant schools in the form of grant-maintained schools or any other form of education that is not in the hands of the state?

Mr. Taylor: We need diversity and I have never argued otherwise. However, directing extra resources to, by definition, a limited number of pupils to send them into a system that most people will never be able to enjoy is not the best use of the limited resources available to the Department of Education and Science. That is why we are against the assisted places scheme.
The argument in favour of the assisted places scheme falls down in its own rationale. We are told that it is intended for pupils who are bright but would not


otherwise have the opportunity to attend an independent school. Yet within the state system there is plenty of evidence that, if there is a group that does not do well, it is not the brightest pupils nor, indeed, the least bright. It is the middle range of pupils, if any, that suffers. The resources should be directed at them.
The argument in favour of the scheme is also based on the assumption that bright children will receive a better education in the independent system than in the state system. Several individual cases were referred to earlier. We were told that one child was the daughter of a bus driver and another was the son of a window cleaner. I have rarely heard anything so patronising in this Chamber. There is simply no evidence to suggest that those who come from a background where their parents work as window cleaners or bus drivers will necessarily fail in a state school. The implications behind those statements absolutely appal me. It is simply a fallacy.
The most important factor in whether such pupils fail is the support that they receive from their parents, the quality of the education offered by individual teachers, irrespective of the type of school in which the teacher works, and the motivation and ability of the pupils. We are all aware of many examples of pupils who go to schools which do not have a good reputation for achieving high academic results—often because the pupils who attend it do not have the support to which I referred—yet overcome their difficulties and do well.
Many people whom I know have achieved extraordinarily good results—grade A in all the exams that they have taken throughout their careers at schools in the state sector which have no special reputation for academic results but which, when a bright pupil comes along, can offer the necessary support.
The fundamental issue addressed by teachers and others in schools which I visit in my work as a constituency Member of Parliament is the overall size of the cake. They stress the need for more text books, more resources in schools, and more teachers to offer the greater flexibility and support for the individual pupil that the private sector can offer, precisely because it is more expensive. It is the withdrawal of those extra resources and their placement in the assisted places scheme and, therefore, in a private sector that is already over-resourced that is so appalling and makes the whole scheme wrong.
I do not believe that Conservative Members have said anything to justify the scheme. Rather they have justified the assumption that is built on prejudice. It reflects that prejudice and will continue to do so.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I want to recount my experience in education so that the House understands that I do not speak from what the Opposition might describe as a privileged background.
I went to a state comprehensive school and taught in the state sector for 10 years. I was a member of the Inner London education authority and, before I entered the House, I was an education officer for a local education authority. All my experience has been gained in the state education sector and, therefore, I speak with some knowledge about the state education system.
As I have listened to the debate I have been depressed by the total lack of thought that Opposition Members have given to the principles of education and freedom of

choice. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), a representative of the Liberal party, spoke about taking freedom of choice away from parents. That party has come a long way from the Liberal party of the 19th century which believed in choice and diversity. It believed in the rights of parents to exercise choice. The hon. Gentleman should consider the book on liberty written by John Stuart Mill which contained the famous statement that it would be a grave mistake on the part of the state if all or a large part of education was concentrated in its hands. We have come a long way since then.
It is important that our education system should offer as many different forms of teaching and opportunities as possible from which parents can choose. It is only through diversity and competition that educational standards increase. If the state and local education authorities had complete control of all schools, if no one was allowed to send their child to a school outside local education authority control and teachers had to work in local education authority schools, there would be no impetus to provide competition and increased standards. There would be no other benchmark by which to judge those schools. It is therefore important that we should have such diversity. There are extremely good schools in the state system, but they will not maintain their excellence if no one else is allowed to provide education outside the state system.
I deplore the attitude of the Labour party. Opposition Members have had the opportunity of grammar school and public school education. They have been able to exercise such choice, but now they are seeking to pull up the ladder behind them. They tell working-class, ordinary people that they may not have that same choice. Look at the direct grant grammar school boys on the Opposition Benches who want to ensure that no one else can exercise choice in education. It is vital that we do not pull up the ladder of opportunity. People must have choice in our education system.
It is a fallacy to pretend that, because everyone cannot enjoy freedom, no one should. That is like the old socialist argument that, because everyone cannot dine at the Ritz, no one should. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) spoke about withdrawing choice from education. Not everyone can own his own home, but does that mean that we should all live in council houses? Not everyone can afford a car, but does that mean that no one should own a car? That is the logic of the Opposition's argument.

Ms. Gordon: The hon. Gentleman asks whether the fact that everyone cannot own his home means that no one should. It does not, but it means that no one should be homeless. Equally, if all children cannot have a privileged education, they should at least have a teacher. Privilege should not mean that some children are in smaller classes while others have no teacher.

Mr. Bennett: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady, but that is not what the Labour party is advocating. It argues that no one should have choice outside the state education system. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West has not argued that because not everyone has equal opportunity, no one should have any opportunity—she believes that no one should have any choice.
It was interesting that when the hon. Member for Durham, North-West intervened in the speech of the hon.
Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) she implied that she believed in the direction of labour, and that teachers should not be allowed to teach in private schools because they had been taught and trained in the state sector.
It is interesting to finish on that point because it shows that Labour Members do not think through what they say. Their policies imply that they would have to create a police state in this country. If the Labour party took to its logical conclusion its policy that nobody should be educated or teach outside the state sector, it would have to create a police state to stop those schools moving to southern Ireland, France and other countries. It would have to introduce laws to stop parents sending their children abroad. If it wishes to do that it will have to set up an edifice of controls and regulations to prevent people from trying to get round the rules by taking their children abroad. Labour Members should think through what they are saying before they decide to take away choice, variety and diversity.
I believe in this small measure, which gives working-class people an opportunity to have a choice in their education, and I support what the Government are doing.

Ms. Armstrong: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak again.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) should not lecture other people when he does not follow his own lessons. No one is saying that people in this country cannot have a choice, and there is much choice within the state sector. We are saying that taxpayers' money should not be used to subsidise a division in education which means that the Government can say that they are content with buying for 1 per cent. what they consider to be the best. Even if they want to get away with that in terms of their ideology, this country cannot afford it. We must get the best for every child.
I invite the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) to look again at the research. I judge the scheme according to the criteria that the Government set out. It is against those criteria—

Mr. Dunn: rose—

Ms. Armstrong: I shall not give way because I am responding to a point raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, North.
In response to the criteria set down by the Government, the scheme has failed. I am happy that the hon. Gentleman should have a look at that.

Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Armstrong: Certainly—now that I have answered the hon. Member for Norwich, North, I happily give way to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn).

Mr. Dunn: I thought for a moment that I was going to be ignored.
Will the hon. Lady confirm and place on record that I can go back to the people of Dartford and tell them tonight that the Labour party's policies would lead to the closure in Dartford of the grammar schools, the city technology college, the grant-maintained school, the

organisation of all secondary schools along comprehensive lines with a range of schools for 11 to 16–year-olds being served by tertiary colleges, and the total elimination of the Church schools?

Ms. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has a vivid imagination. To save the time of the House, I will send him our policy review so that he can read it for himself. I want to be straight with the hon. Gentleman and if I were to answer him fully, I would take some time, which I do not have.
People are saying that the Government's policy is popular, but, in that case, why are 6,000 places—not 4,000, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said—unfilled?
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) for pointing out the effect of the measures on many places.
I shall finish, not with another quote from the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), although that is tempting, but with a quote from people in the independent sector who have assessed the effect of the assisted places scheme on that sector. They know that the main effect on that sector is to subsidise it. David Woodhead, director of the Independent Schools Information Service, has said that if the removal of the assisted places scheme were to go ahead
there would be a lot of worried schools.
The bursar of St. Mary's college in Crosby said:
Schools that have not made some form of provision to back up the assisted places scheme if it was withdrawn could be rather exposed.
Judith Sichy, director of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, said that it was impossible to say quite how much schools would lose if charitable status was abolished, but it would be a "blow" and would lead to fee increases for parents. That is the fear of Conservative Members—that the independent school sector, or much of it, would collapse because it would lose the public subsidy.
Let us use that public subsidy to good effect for the children of our country who need such support, so that we can ensure that they are able to take the country forward to an effective economy and an effective future. If we do that for all our children, no one will need to argue for any assisted places.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I was grateful to the hon. Lady for the kind words that she spoke at the beginning of her speech, but then I was disappointed, because I had hoped that the Labour party, in the process of its policy review, would have given some fresh thought to this issue, which we have debated many times in the past. Yet it seems to ignore the realities before it.
For example, the hon. Lady disputed—

Mr. Straw: We were of two minds on what to do about the assisted places scheme until we read the review by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). It was his view that this experiment had been such a failure that led to our decision to phase the scheme out.

Mr. Howarth: Again, I would have hoped that the Labour party would muster its own intellectual resources to think up an education policy, but it has not.
The hon. Lady ignored the fact that there is choice. In her own area there is a choice; in county Durham children


may go to Barnard Castle school within the scheme, and with the extension of the scheme there will be a new opportunity for children to go to assisted places at King's School in north Tyneside, to which the hon. Lady also referred. The hon. Lady, like the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), said that her purpose was to ensure that excellent education was available for all. We can all agree upon that.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South then spoilt it by making it clear that she believes, not in equality of opportunity but in equality of outcome. She developed a curious, and indeed interesting, theory, which might have its attractions, that an equal sum should be made available from public resources for all children. I am not sure whether she was beginning to argue for a voucher scheme and whether that is more evidence of the influence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) on the thinking of the Labour party. Really her idea was a travesty of my right hon. Friend's thinking. All hon. Members know that my right hon. Friend has always been a great champion of freedom and of choice.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) for the support that he expressed for the assisted places scheme. He raised some serious and practical points. He asked, as did the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, about the lack of complete take-up of assisted places in some schools. It is inevitable that there will be some schools where there are not applications for all the places, just as there are many other schools that are over-subscribed under the scheme. We have a system of negotiation to transfer the surplus quota of places from the under-subscribed schools to the fully subscribed schools, and we are working on a more flexible and quickly responsive scheme of pooling to enable us to deal with that problem.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of publicity. The principal responsibility for publicising the scheme rests with the schools. I pay tribute to the effort that so many of the schools in the scheme make to ensure that young people and their parents are aware of the available opportunities. That will be part of a much wider culture, because under the local management of schools, and with open enrolment, all schools will have to seek to make themselves attractive to the parents and children whom it is their responsibility to serve.
My hon. Friend the Member for York asked whether we provide leaflets: we certainly do. They explain how the scheme works and how families can benefit from it. I hope that more local education authorities will recognise their responsibility to make known the existence of scheme schools in their area. Equally, I look to primary heads to ensure that children who could appropriately go on to a school in the scheme know about it.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for York asked about the north-east. I am pleased to say that, as part of the extension of the scheme this September, no fewer than six new schools will be admitted to the scheme in the north-east, and there will be three additional places in the Yarn school of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) is a governor. He made a powerful speech in which he reminded us of the disappointing record of the last Labour Government, who destroyed the direct grant scheme. Their commitment to destroy this scheme is a dreary return to that kind of prejudice.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) spoke up doughtily for Sheffield, as he always does. He was right to do so, just as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) rightly spoke up for Tower Hamlets. I recognise the educational difficulties that those local authorities and parents, children and teachers in their areas face. Of course we shall do what we can to help. I met a deputation led by the leader of the Sheffield LEA recently, and I have fully absorbed his concerns. Only this afternoon, I saw the director of education in Tower Hamlets, and I pay tribute to her remarkable efforts to improve the quality of the service in that area.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough became rather old-fashioned when he got to the bit about the assisted places scheme. The cost of the scheme in the financial year 1989–80 was less than half of 1 per cent. of total public expenditure on schools. The hon. Gentleman has got he issue out of proportion. Since we came to office we have increased real spending by more than 40 per cent. per child. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) mentioned expenditure on books and equipment. That, too, is up by 28 per cent.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) for the refreshing good sense they brought to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest recited a gloomy catalogue of the destructive pledges of the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North spoke with legitimate pride of his experience of teaching in one of the great schools in the scheme—Manchester grammar—and about Norwich high school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) brought to the debate the benefit of his authority as one who has great depth of experience of working in the maintained sector. He talked a great deal of good sense.
I must take issue with the hon. Member for Truro, who wrongly extracted from the remarks of Conservative Members the inference that there had been some disparagement of the maintained schools, merely because we believe that the APS widens choice and gives the parents of less well-off children the opportunity to send their offspring to some of the best schools in the country. There are many extremely good maintained schools. We must cherish excellence wherever it is found—and support it. I look forward to meeting a deputation from Cornwall next week and I shall do what I can to ensure that the teachers of Cornwall, to whom I pay tribute, have every opportunity to continue to serve their pupils.
I commend the draft regulations to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 89.

Division No. 307]
[1.14 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amess, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amos, Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkinson, David
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Buck, Sir Antony






Burns, Simon
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Burt, Alistair
Knowles, Michael


Butterfill, John
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carrington, Matthew
Lightbown, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chope, Christopher
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maclean, David


Colvin, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Conway, Derek
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Mans, Keith


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Marland, Paul


Cran, James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Day, Stephen
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Devlin, Tim
Mellor, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Miller, Sir Hal


Dover, Den
Mills, Iain


Dunn, Bob
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Durant, Tony
Mitchell, Sir David


Evennett, David
Moate, Roger


Favell, Tony
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Morrison, Sir Charles


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Moss, Malcolm


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fishburn, John Dudley
Nelson, Anthony


Fookes, Dame Janet
Neubert, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Freeman, Roger
Norris, Steve


French, Douglas
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard


Gardiner, George
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patnick, Irvine


Gill, Christopher
Patten, Rt Hon John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pawsey, James


Gorst, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gow, Ian
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Raffan, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gregory, Conal
Rathbone, Tim


Ground, Patrick
Redwood, John


Hague, William
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hanley, Jeremy
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rowe, Andrew


Harris, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayes, Jerry
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hind, Kenneth
Shelton, Sir William


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shersby, Michael


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Irvine, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jack, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Janman, Tim
Stern, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Stevens, Lewis


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Summerson, Hugo


Key, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Temple-Morris, Peter





Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wells, Bowen


Thorne, Neil
Wheeler, Sir John


Thornton, Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Nicholas


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Watts, John





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Armstrong, Hilary
McAllion, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Beggs, Roy
McFall, John


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McKelvey, William


Bradley, Keith
McWilliam, John


Buckley, George J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Carr, Michael
Meale, Alan


Clay, Bob
Michael, Alun


Clelland, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morgan, Rhodri


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morley, Elliot


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mullin, Chris


Cousins, Jim
Murphy, Paul


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Darling, Alistair
Primarolo, Dawn


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Redmond, Martin


Dewar, Donald
Reid, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Richardson, Jo


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Robertson, George


Eastham, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Short, Clare


Fatchett, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Flannery, Martin
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Foster, Derek
Spearing, Nigel


Galloway, George
Steinberg, Gerry


George, Bruce
Straw, Jack


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hardy, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Walley, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Illsley, Eric
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kennedy, Charles
Worthington, Tony


Lamond, James



Leadbitter, Ted
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That Mr. Robert Rhodes James be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Mr. Graham Bright be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. David Simpson

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Jim Marshall: I wish to express my delight at obtaining this Adjournment debate, although it is diminished by my regret at having to raise the issue in such a public way. I recognise that raising this case in the House will inevitably arouse memories, anger and anguish among those concerned in the incident three years ago.
I wish that we—myself, Mr. David Simpson and his solicitor and his barrister—had been able to convince the Home Office and the Minister, through private correspondence, of the need to pay Mr. Simpson compensation for the three months that he spent in prison for a crime that he did not commit.
I do not think that there is any disagreement between me and the Minister about the background to the case. There was a fatal road accident in April 1987, and there is no doubt that Mr. Simpson was subsequently charged with causing death by reckless driving. Throughout, Mr. Simpson protested that he was the pillion rider and not the driver rider of the motor cycle involved.
The Minister will know that Mr. Simpson was on bail for about 14 months until he appeared in Leicester Crown court on 1 to 3 August 1988. He was convicted on a majority verdict and received a 12–month term of imprisonment. However, in the light of further evidence his conviction was quashed at the Court of Appeal on 11 November 1988. After some three months in prison, that innocent man was finally vindicated.
I must emphasise that Mr. Simpson was extremely lucky that two new witnesses came forward to support his case. It was fortuitous that they did so before the appeal was heard. They had seen a report in the 10 August 1988 edition of Motor Cycle News and realised that there had been a miscarriage of justice. At the time of the accident, the two witnesses had been living in Leicester, but had subsequently moved to Cornwall and so were not familiar with what had happened; neither had they seen reports of the court case in the Leicester Mercury, the local evening newspaper.
When the witnesses saw the report in Motor Cycle News, they realised that it was their duty and responsibility to come forward and support Mr. Simpson's case. In the absence of those new witnesses, there would have been a distinct possibility that an innocent man would have had to serve the remainder of his sentence.
In the light of that background—and I bear no animosity towards the Minister—I wish to emphasise that I deeply resent and regret that the fact that he included the following sentence in a letter to me on 13 November 1989: I quote from the third page of the Home Office letter and the words of the Minister, or perhaps of his civil servant:
The new witnesses, although apparently known to a friend of Mr. Simpson, did not appear until three days before the appeal hearing—some 18 months after the incident.
I am not sure what was meant by those words, but I draw from them two inferences that I find deeply offensive. The first is that Mr. Simpson should or could have been aware of the existence of those witnesses at the time of his trial, and that some fault therefore lies on his shoulders for not bringing them forward then. The second is that those

witnesses were somehow sprung on the Court of Appeal at the last moment. If I am wrong in drawing those inferences, I shall be delighted to hear the Minister say that they do not represent his point of view.
The barrister who defended Mr. Simpson is convinced that the original conviction was a miscarriage of justice. The Minister will have read a letter from Mr. Gaskell to the Home Office dated 12 February 1990, in which he wrote:
Normally, as counsel, I do not concern myself with questions about whether a defendant actually did or did not commit the crimes alleged. But as the evidence in the trial unfolded, it became clear that this was a wholly exceptional case. Sometimes juries do get it wrong: they did here. The conviction was, in my view, plainly wrong. Accordingly, Mr. Simpson spent 3 months in prison for a crime he did not commit.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister that the effects of the incident on Mr. Simpson and his family were devastating. I will quote his own words. He explains that in the pre-trial period he was bailed for 14 months,
during which time the mental stress of having the case `hanging over me' was unbearable and had already affected a four-year relationship with my common law wife. At this time she left me.
The relationship between Mr. Simpson and his common law wife broke down as a direct consequence of the pre-trial stress. His elderly parents suffered great mental stress, ending with their both being treated with medication by their doctor. Mr. Simpson's relationship with his two children, then aged 19 and 20, also suffered during the pre-trial period as a consequence of the stress, irritability and depression that Mr. Simpson felt.
Mr. Simpson continued to protest his innocence throughout this time in prison. He writes:
My total bewilderment at my predicament, constantly protesting my innocence, led me to suggest to the prison doctor the drastic action of a hunger strike. I was told I would be put in a hospital wing in a padded cell if I suggested such a thing again.
Perhaps that was the natural reaction of an innocent man, trying to show the authorities that he was prepared to go to any lengths to protest his innocence. He goes on:
While sharing a small, cramped cell with two other prisoners, one of the inmates threatened to hang himself with a sheet, whilst another inmate close by was threatened with rape, and a brutal attack ensued. Those are just two examples of the awful atrocities I encountered on a daily basis.
That further illustrates the ordeal that this innocent man had to endure throughout his three months in prison.
After this innocent man's conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal some 18 months ago, he was released, but he is still trying to draw the threads of his life together. I quote him again:
To this day I feel I have been mentally scarred by these events. It has left me feeling confused, persecuted and unable to trust. Family and close friends have commented continuously about my changed personality. I have been unable to form a close relationship since my release. I am constantly depressed, increasingly bitter by the complete injustice of this ordeal. This is despite the fact that I have endeavoured to build a new life for myself, completing a year's Fine Arts Course and gaining a place on a BA (Hons) Degree course. Despite my efforts throughout the last 18 months I have suffered severe financial loss due to this case, my parents (who are both pensioners) have also suffered financially due to this case. I am still in the process of paying off debts incurred while I was in prison. The constant refusals to pay any amount of compensation for this ordeal, even after my innocence was exonerated by the high court, is still creating mental pressures and fuelling the bitterness I feel.
I am picking up the pieces of my life. I would like very much to put this dreadful experience behind me. Not only for


myself, but for my family and supportive friends who have all suffered because of my constant determination to see justice be done. My worst fear is that this experience could happen again to an innocent man.
I recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as I know that both you and the Minister will—that no amount of money can remove these mental scars. Only the passage of time will remove them from the forefront of Mr. Simpson's mind. No decision by the Government or the Minister can remove those scars. However, I hope that the manner in which I have dealt with Mr. Simpson's case—I have not castigated the Minister personally—will lead to recognition of the fact that an injustice was done and that there was a miscarriage of justice. I hope, therefore, that some compensation will be made for the time that Mr. Simpson spent in prison.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I begin by saying two things to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). First, I appreciate the measured way in which he has pursued this case on behalf of his constituent. Furthermore, I appreciate the reasoned and reasonable way in which he has put the case, both in correspondence and in the House tonight. It was in the best traditions of the House. No constituent who found himself in this or in any other unfortunate circumstance could wish for anyone more assiduous as his Member of Parliament than the hon. Member for Leicester, South in taking his case to the highest quarters. The hon. Gentleman's constituent must be fully aware of the way in which his case has been advanced by his Member of Parliament.
It is unnecessary for me to go in great detail into the facts of the case. There is no dispute about the facts of the trial and the appeal, as it unfolded. Before I deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, the House might find it helpful if I outline briefly the criteria to be applied when considering applications for the payment of compensation in cases of wrongful conviction such as this. It is important to get the facts in front of us.
Compensation may be payable under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or, where that does not apply, it may take the form of an ex-gratia payment. Under the terms of section 133 of the 1988 Act compensation may be payable where a person convicted of a criminal offence has that conviction quashed by an appeal made to the court of appeal, either "out of time" or following a reference by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, or by means of a free pardon on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I remember the debates on section 133 of the 1988 Act when I took the Bill through the Standing Committee.
There is an ex gratia scheme, because those cases which do not meet the criteria of section 133 are considered in the light of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the then Home Secretary, on 29 November 1985. Such ex gratia cases are now confined to those cases where people have spent a period in custody but where a conviction is quashed by the Court of Appeal following an "in time" appeal or to persons

charged and where proceedings were later terminated, possibly because of some alleged misconduct by the proper authorities.
The criteria to be applied in these cases are as follows. First, the detention must have resulted from serious default by a member of the police force or of some other public authority or, if there is no evidence of such a default, there must be exceptional circumstances that justify compensation. Quite often, after due process in the Court of Appeal, a conviction is overturned without any allegation of serious default by a member of the police force or any other public authority. Therefore, it is important to realise that, in many cases, quite properly, compensation is not paid because there has been no such default.
An example of exceptional circumstances would be the appearance of facts at the trial or on appeal that completely exonerate the accused person. Compensation will not normally be payable in cases where persons have been acquitted at trial or subsequently on appeal because the prosecution were unable to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the specific charges brought. That bears repeating. According to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, compensation will not normally be payable in cases where persons have been acquitted at trial or subsequently on appeal because the prosecution were unable to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the specific charges brought. Such an occurrence would be the failure of a witness to attend, therefore preventing the prosecution proceeding with the case.
Requests for compensation are usually made by letter from the claimant or his solicitors. The facts of the case are first considered to decide whether it falls under the statutory scheme, the ex gratia scheme or neither. Such applications often require further inquiries to be made, for example of the police, before a decision can be reached. The question of eligibility for the payment of compensation is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, entirely a matter for determination by the Home Secretary of the day.
It has been important to rehearse these facts because those who are concerned, such as Mr. Simpson and his family, should know the facts that underlie our system of compensation.
I now turn to the claim for compensation, which was advanced so powerfully by the hon. Member for Leicester, South on behalf of Mr. Simpson. On 5 May 1989, Mr. Simpson's solicitors applied for compensation for the three months that their client had been detained in custody. That is common ground between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
Following that application, detailed inquiries were made of the Leicestershire constabulary, which investigated the accident. As Mr. Simpson's appeal had been in time, his claim did not meet the requirements of the statutory compensation scheme under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The only possibility available to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was to consider it under the terms of the exgratia scheme.
In Mr. Simpson's case, there was no question of serious default by the police in bringing the charge of causing death by reckless driving against him. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on that. I see him indicating assent. The charge against Mr. Simpson was brought on the basis


of evidence from witnesses of his position on the motor cycle at the time of the accident. The evidence of a forensic scientist cast doubt on the suggestion that the rider had been thrown from the motor cycle while it was moving. That evidence was presented to the jury which, in the light of its majority decision, must have accepted it, although none of us will know what went on in the jury room.
The two new witnesses presented on appeal questioned that evidence but did not make themselves known to the police prior to the trial—it strikes me as peculiar that they did not do so—hence the sentence that the hon. Gentleman said that he resented. I do not think that there is any reason for resentment. It is peculiar, but sometimes there are peculiar circumstances in criminal cases that are hard to understand. I find it hard to understand why they did not come forward earlier. Linden Arnold's comment —he was one of the two new witnesses that the police did not ask them to make statements is understandable from the police's point of view because they were unaware of those witnesses when they conducted their investigation. The police behaved properly in the pre-trial period.
The witnesses were, however, known to a friend of Mr. Simpson's before the trial. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to suggest that the police were at serious fault in charging Mr. Simpson or that the conviction was wrongful on the basis of the evidence available at the trial. The new evidence produced by the two witnesses three days before the Court of Appeal hearing questioned the safety of the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial. However, from the information available to me, it would appear that their evidence contained several discrepancies, compared with the earlier evidence given by the police officers. Some conflict about who was driving the motor cycle remains unresolved.
On the information available, Mr. Simpson's case does not appear to my right hon. and learned Friend to meet the criteria required to establish a claim for an exceptional payment of compensation under the terms of the ex gratia scheme. His application was refused accordingly.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I am grateful to the Minister for the measured way in which he is replying to the debate. Again, he has made the inferences to which I referred about the

two new witnesses, but the fact of the matter is that the Court of Appeal accepted their evidence. That new information led it to quash the original conviction as being unsound and unsafe.
I appreciate that that leads to discussion and argument about the way in which the police conducted the original inquiry and I have my doubts about that. However., I deliberately did not raise that issue this evening because I did not want to cloud the specific injustice that had been done to Mr. Simpson with wider allegations about the original investigation.

Mr. Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Let us just rehearse briefly the representations that he has made since he first wrote on 26 September 1989 to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, who is now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Then and on previous occasions Mr. Simpson's case has been given the most careful and detailed consideration and that consideration underpinned the letter that I wrote on 3 November 1989, which contained the offensive sentence, informing the hon. Gentleman that the case was not one in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would feel justified in authorising any ex-gratia payment of compensation from public funds.
I reconsidered Mr. Simpson's case with officials on two further occasions following the hon. Gentleman's letters of 11 December 1989 and 23 February 1990 to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. As the hon. Gentleman knows from my letters to him of 15 January and 2 May, we could find no grounds to justify departing from our earlier decision.
I listened with careful interest to what the hon. Gentleman said tonight on behalf of Mr. Simpson, but I do not think that any new matters of consideration have been put before the House. In the light of that, I must inform the hon. Gentleman and the House that I do not think that it will be possible for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to change his earlier decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.